Smeagol92055: R.O.A.C.H.:

I can say that Ben Sisko changed my life; he was so different from either of the captains showcased before him.

Whereas Kirk treated his underlings like utter shit, and Picard... well, hell, the man could make you feel bad, like you let down your father or something, Sisko was an entirely different beast. He was a father himself, and he treated all of his crew with respect and understanding, even when the people on the station tested his limits, he rarely lost his cool completely with someone.

He was far more diplomatic than anyone I had ever seen, and it molded me into a pretty diplomatic person myself. These days I think pretty hard before speaking (in the real world, of course,) and I always try to find a way out of a situation that will be mutually beneficial for all parties involved.

Here's to you, Sisko.

ElimGarak:

I spent several years at alt.startrek.vs.starwars, and it shaped my outlook on life immensely. It taught me that some people are just too wrapped up in their own little worlds to consider alternate perspectives - and also helped me take things less seriously.

Furthermore, the stories in Star Trek are one of the few areas where you win by solving a problem as an adult, instead of punching and kicking. Too much sci-fi is aimed at the lowest common denominator, and tries to capture the high school jock demographic.

angiek:

Star Trek (especially TNG, DS9 and Voyager) totally changed my life. I think it did so because of how old I was at the time and that it was exactly what I needed at the time to develop a positive sense of self.

It was late 1993 and I was 12 the first time I encountered Star Trek. It was a TNG novel dealing with Klingons and a subplot with Wesley Crusher. Being a geeky kid I felt calmed by the idea that there were smart kids in the future and that, in the Star Trek world, being geeky wasn't a bad thing. This is why, crappy writing for the character in most episodes aside, that character will always be my favorite. When I started watching DS9 and TNG on the little b&w set my mom had I just fell in love with the shows. Here were people who were smart and adventurous and I spent a lot of time modeling my attitudes based on what I learned from Star Trek. I, too, learned from Star Trek what I wanted my friendships and relationships to be like in the real world. Also, the multicultural love fests (in regards to actors and character backgrounds) that were DS9 and, eventually, Voyager really made me happy and feel that it was okay to look different than 95% of my peers. In the future, I thought, life would be good, and not so sucky as my real life was at the time. There were heroes, like Picard and Sisko and Janeway, who were good and smart and I wanted to be just like them.

The casts became like a family to me, in a "I know it's just a tv show and the actors don't know me personally" kind of way. I still choke up momentarily when I attend a convention with an actor present who I've never met before. Star Trek gave me such a sense of self that it's hard not to be overwhelmed. Watching Star Trek back then sometimes meant more to me than being with my real family.

jedikalos:

It was TOS for me, in 1966 when I was ten years old. My parents had divorced and the world seemed strange and scary (Vietnam on TV, and the atomic war drills in school—they actually had us bring in blankets and glass jars for water, I kid you not, and taught us how to duck down when the sirens wailed, and the civil rights struggles and all of it)—and Star Trek gave my small self a real hope and comfort that people could be different: rational and caring and yes, as you talk about, in a community. The relationship between Kirk and Spock and McCoy fascinated me and in some way made me feel better about my life. And Spock inspired me to embrace rationality and logic with a true passion—not to mention the ideals of equality and tolerance which were just imprinted on my young mind (never to fade).

corvus.imbrifer:

But for Star Trek I would have grown up a happy, open-minded, liberal, unwitting racist. I grew up in a pleasant, happy, liberal(ish) enclave where there were certainly people of color, I just didn't know them. So despite my parents best efforts, I must have figured that being black (or whatever) did not make someone unequal, it was just something polite people didn't notice. Not an outright handicap, more like a birthmark or something. Dianne Carroll, Nat King Cole and Harry Belafonte were popular on television, despite (I must have thought) the minor disadvantage that there were to be congratulated for overcoming.

Then came Uhura.

She was African (no hyphens), she was manifestly competent (arguably the most emotionally stable person in sight), she was an officer respected by everyone (the white boys jumped when she gave an order - happily so, see previous), didn't apologize, didn't explain, she was a perfect example of 'do the work.' Two particular moments stuck in my head: one where an alien in the form of Lincoln addressed her as 'a charming negress' and I had to have that word explained to me. She responded with admirable grace, and a remark about the power of words that I carry with me to this day.

Then of course there was the time Sulu, deliriously D'Artagnen, fencing sword in hand, came up to her declaring 'I'll protect you, fair maiden!' to which she tartly replied: "Sorry, neither." I had to have that explained to me, too.

Anyway. The message penetrated that not only was she exactly who she was, but no one on the Enterprise was politely ignoring anything (such as her race), the entire notion of 'acceptance' or 'tolerance' would have baffled them. (One recalls the episode with the two fellows with black/white face paint. On occassion, The Message was writ quite large.) Meanwhile, Spock's race was only an issue because he frequently made it one (or the writer's did).

And over in the gender studies department, there were times when Ms Nichols was expected to say 'Captain, I'm frightened,' and though her mouth pronounced the words her eyes said 'You know, if it were me in the captain's chair instead of your horny butt, we wouldn't be getting shot at by an armada of angry fathers'... Thus staking out a place in my tiny whitebread mind for women in positions of authority. Captain Janeway was a long time coming.

Without Uhura, I would have been a subtle bigot, because I wouldn't have thought I was one. "I treat all people as if they were equals", I would have said, not realizing that I was nonetheless thinking of women or non-white people as 'Other.' I thank Star Trek, and Ms Nichols, for giving me a good lecture and a hard shake both directly and by example. It stuck.

yye00:

Without a shadow of a doubt, Star Trek had a huge impact on my life. I watched TNG as it aired in the 80's, and I was six years old. Since then I knew I wanted to be an engineer or a scientist. I was living in the middle east at the time and things were quite rough, needless to say, TNG made me stick with it, and I graduated as an engineer and now I am a scientist. I still remember the starry night I walked back home from watching Star Trek First Contact, thinking to myself, warp drives are exactly what I want to do with my life. That lead me to study numerical relativity and sure enough I ended up across the world working and studying as a scientist at a research center.

That being said, the moral questions, the sense of wonder and awe at the universe, the quest for knowledge and truth, the philosophical questions the crew of the Enterprise tackled every week, it gave me hope of a better future, of a humanity where you are judged based upon your merits and shortcomings as an individual (not if you have the "force" on your side). The vast universe stretched further than our eyes can see in a million years just begging to be explored and charted. All we had to do was lay the building blocks in science and engineering, and perhaps one day, we might get there. In the meantime, we will watch re-runs :)

Robert Carver:

Star Trek had a definite impact upon my life. I was an ADHD kid in a small rural school system back in the mid-70's. There was no diagnosis available at that time that would explain to my parents and teachers why I was such a hyperactive child. So those feelings of alienation weighed upon me when I discovered Star Trek in re-runs Monday through Friday at 6pm on a cable channel. I was immediately drawn to these characters and the universe they inhabited where every person was of value. The crew of the Starship Enterprise were wonderful role models for me as it was a show that celebrated the best aspects of humanity coupled with the exploration of the Final Frontier. So I was relieved to find that even troubled kids like me had a place in the future.

The movies with the original cast were very enjoyable as I was hungry for further adventures with these family members. I was 14 when I went to see The Wrath of Khan in June of 82. The story of how important the relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy was appealed to me. They each possessed aspects of behavior and thought that were made whole when they were together. Spock's death as he sacrificed himself to save the Enterprise viscerally hit me at such a primal level that it took about an hour after the movie ended just to stop crying. The theme of friendship and loyalty resonated with me as I internalized the values espoused in the series and these movies.

I had been ill in high school and as time passed I kept getting worse but the doctors I saw weren't able to diagnose me. I finally became so ill I was rushed to the ER and then hospitalized. While I was waiting to find out what was wrong, I watched episodes of TNG as often as possible. They were halfway through the pivotal 3rd season while I was in the hospital. That helped keep me calm as I awaited the news. I was finally diagnosed with Crohn's Disease.

Since that diagnosis in 1990 I have had 4 bowel resections, other surgeries, a multitude of invasive tests, hospital stays and numerous complications. My constant companion over the past 19 years has been the stories of a better future on TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. For that one hour each week I was transported away from my earthly problems into a reality where so many of the things I valued were explored in continuing voyages of each crew.

Star Trek has helped me battle my depression as I struggle with Crohn's and my difficulties in maintaining relationships. Gene Roddenberry's vision of a secular, science and reason based Earth that sends out explorers to seek out new life and new civilizations fires my imagination and encourages me to do what I can in the here and now to lay the foundation for that imagined Star Trek universe. I have been a fan of this franchise for so long, now 25 years, I can not remember a time in my life when Star Trek wasn't there.

Star Trek has evolved with the various incarnations and with the release of the new movie, it has made a quantum leap back into the national zeitgeist. Star Trek has become relevant again in our culture and the old school die-hard fans are no longer an endangered species. Like any great mythological tale, Star Trek has been and will continue to be many things to each fan. For me, the boundless optimism that humanity will unite, progress and finally leave the cradle of Earth to explore a universe teaming with sentient life forms makes me a better person in the here and now. Rather than destroy our world, we will evolve to a higher level of awareness and have a higher purpose than the current obsession with material goods and religious/cultural wars. The journey to get to that Utopian future I know we must act now.

So I cannot imagine how different I would be if I had never discovered Star Trek. I would not have learned to appreciate Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. I wouldn't have learned that it doesn't matter what we look like, where we are from, how different we are to each other, it is the content of our character that is important. All we have is this one life so we better make the best of it while we can. "To Boldly Go" isn't just about exploring space, it is about exploring ourselves. I just wish I could live to see the world imagined by Star Trek become reality. Now that would be my idea of heaven.

No cheap commentary from me, for once. Thank you, everyone, for sharing, and may the force be with you all. Wait, wrong franchise.

(Okay, one cheap comment. I can't go entirely cold turkey.)

Leave to Garrison Dean to start the trouble:

Who wants to become super villains with me just so we can go mess with these guys? Seriously. I want to hang him from a fire-escape by his wallet chains. I'm all for truth or justice, but I also believe that Spandex should be worn by people with low BMIs.

Of course, it didn't help that so many people agreed with him:

Illogic: "Are you saying we should become personal trainers for wannabe superheroes?
Just send them a link to the nearest parkour group or something. That'd hopefully both get them fit, and make them realize you don't have to wear a costume to be a good and helpful human being. (Not to mention self-pleasuring.)"

Garrison Dean: "Train them!? Fuuuuck that! I want to be the steel nozzle pouring fear into their baggy pants. They want to help society? I want to make them work for it! You can't feed the homeless when I've brainwashed them to become my UNWILLING ARMY OF DOOM!!!"

LittleDragon: "Wait a minute...your brainwashing them into your UNWILLING army? Why not brainwash them into becoming your WILLING army? It works better. Just as soon as they show up here I'll show them the town. There is a reason the Mayor kicked the tv show COPS out of town and told them to never come back."

mudderofcanton: "Until I can think of a better name I will be Kicker of Losers. My weapon of choice steel toed boots! YEAH!!"

JaiMak: "man, I want to go to ohio and kick their ass."

labbla: "I'm visiting Cincinnati this summer. Looks like I better whip up an evil scheme and a super villain costume."

MoraAmphiaraus: "I kind of...want to be a super villain now, and hunt these guys down. in the end it would do some good by keeping kids off the street and out of neighborhoods such as the tenderloin district in san francisco, or downtown oakland where they'd get eaten alive."

LucilleMagumbalee: "So if I just beat the crap outta one of these guys do I earn the rank Super Villian, or will I need to be wearing a costume when I hand out the ass beating?"

Honestly, it's like none of you saw Dr. Horrible or something. Don't take the dark path! It'll lead to Felicia Day getting killed! Again!

(Spoiler warning.)

Of course, others just had a problem with the real-life supervillains that appeared in the video:

OW-Holmes, the housekeeper: "The real problem is his voice. How is he supposed to strike terror into the hearts of men, with such a high voice? And you cant build any kind of mystique walking around during the day. You need to be peering off the sides of rooftops and skulking in alleys. As a sociopath with an unwavering sense of right and wrong, I know how to be a real superhero."

JodaThongnopnua: "He needs to get his Christian Bale 'I've had a cough for a week' voice on."

ChibaCityCowboy: "lol yeah right at the beginning of The Dark Knight Returns , I thought to myself 'So when did Batman start smoking...'"

Plague: "That guy looks more like a villain's cheap sidekick from a Power Ranger's episode than a superhero."

Belabras Saw Three Lights!: "Ignoring the inadvisability of this, why aren't any of these fools wearing even the most basic of body armor? If you are honestly intending to have physical altercations with people who are breaking the law why are you going about it in what looks like a swimsuit, jeans, and a lucha libre mask?"

Jcous: "They really need to step up their costume game. Also, they could stand to work out a bit. Nothing against a little flab on your average person, but these are supposed to be superheroes, right? They need to be able to outrun and out-fight their opponents, in theory, not to mention instill some semblance of fear. I wouldn't be too worried if I saw a somewhat out-of-shape young gentleman in neon yellow, spraypainted (couldn't afford screen printing?) spandex jogging after me with handcuffs. They need a stylist, personal trainer and PR agent. Oh, and Shadowhare has to do something about that voice. Watch Batman begins - learn that Batman growl"

At least some of you got where they were coming from:

thatoneguy42: "You know what i'm gonna say more power to them. Id rather be saved by a regular guy in spandex, who actually has some notion of right and wrong, than by a bunch of corrupt, closed-minded, easily manipulated, angry, racist fat-asses in blue who abuse and batter innocents to make themselves feel special when they can't meet their quotas. i bet you ONE of those superheroes does more good in a day than half of the cops out there. Keep on rocking Shadowhare, fight the good fight."

BCWoods: "You know, as someone who suffers from some pretty strong social phobias, I kind of look up to these guys in a weird way. Don't get me wrong, I totally think they're going to be raped, killed, eaten, and re-raped by the first real deviant they come across... but still I couldn't even put on spandex in my OWN house, let alone walk around in public wearing an outfit that ridiculous. That takes some serious balls."

spacekicker: "I look at it like this. Instead of wearing costumes they could readily be walking around town as emo goth kids, or a random gang of hoodlums. Instead they actually feed the homeless and give everyone a good chuckle, and if they do stand up and help someone from getting beat up or whatever. Shoot, good for them. It may be silly, but it's the good kind of silly"

And that's what we'll put on their gravestones, after Garrison and his Evil League of Evil Evilness has destroyed all the good in the world, just for fun. "They lived for the good kind of silly."

It's a fitting epitaph.

I'm all for people disagreeing with what we post, especially if it's done in a way that (a) is funnier than we are (Very common, considering you people. Damn you) or (b) somehow proves us wrong and yet still manages to make us feel good about ourselves (Admittedly, somewhat less common), but there's a line that friends don't let friends cross, and the relative value of Enterprise is one of them. I admit it, I've been tuning into the occasional episode on HDNet recently, needing a Trek fix before the movie comes out, and here's the thing: The series is, at best, okay. It's not the satanic thing of hell that I remembered it as - Okay, the third season kind of is, but we were all different people back then - but it's never really, really good, either. Or, for that matter, even Voyager good. That's why this discussion caused me such pain on Thursday:

Justin MacIver: "Come on Enterprise wasnt bad at all until later on when it got hard to understand.."

MrTim: "Wait, what? Hard to understand? Better earlier on? Were you watching the same show as me?"

NotArthurPDragon: "It started at the horrific theme song (a song! since when have we needed a song!?!) and went downhill from there, climaxing the needless death of the most liked character in the final episode."

alphanumeric1971: "I too had hope, even once I heard the theme song. But then I saw the "decon Gel" scene and for me all hope was lost...

Mercurial Chimaera: "On the subject of that song... every time I heard it I was thinking alternate lyrics: "It's been a bong load, to get from there to here..." Because that's about what it took to properly numb your brain against the onslaught of time-traveling Nazi aliens, etc."

LittleDragon: "I for one love that song (the other shows had songs as well, just no words). I liked the show but T'pol was a bit to emotional and looked too human."

Azogue: " The theme song was the deal killer on this one... it...simply...sucked... wind... very...hard. Moronic lyrics. They should've used the music from the alternate "evil" universe episode for the entire series. Much better. And without Star Trek and Star Wars, kids may never hear an orchestra!"

dOk: "I keep telling you guys that I know the origin of that stupid song. When I worked at Interplay back in its heyday, there were a string of game producers backed by paramount producers that wanted a stupid rock song for Star Trek. The idea got shot down back then but some jerk-wad just couldn't let it go and pushed for it again on Enterprise and got it. The rest is ear suffering history and proved once and for all why it was a bad idea that got shot down in flames years ago."

L3G10N: "If they went with Stan Bush's "You've got the touch" I would have watched every episode....well at least the opening credits!"

ShefaliMagooin: "Yes, the song was annoying, but that is why you just skip over it on the DVD. The reality is that the last season killed it. It was too cheezy with excessive two and three part episodes. The last episode was the final nail in the coffin. I don't blame them for cancelling it after that. It was like they wanted to ensure that there wasn't any point in carrying on."

neolex: "Season 4 was what season 1 SHOULD have been... Human's exploring their neighbourhood, getting into unfortunate scraps, laying down all the building blocks for the awesomeness of TOS, TNG, DS9 and ... the other one... I will come out and say I LOVED season 4 ENT. Great World-building tie-ins to what the audience knows is coming."

Harrison_Bergeron: "The show had a couple moments where you could actually see something worthwhile under the stock characters and recycled plots, but they really were few and far between. On the whole though the show really was crap."

twDarkflame: "The pilot was great, and the last season was pretty good (çept the last ep), but overall. No. It was such a waste opertunity too....rather then exploring near our technology (+warp) they introduced tracker beams, holodecks, transporters etc practicaly every episode."

SinisterBill: "Not to mention they set it in the time period leading up to the war with the Romulans, only to show them in 2 freaking episodes! Fuck, they had 7 season worth of established canon that would have practically written itself and instead they scraped it all and gave us the fucking Xindi. BURN IN HELL BRAGA & BERMAN!!!"

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but let's face it: Enterprise really was terrible, and for more reasons than just that song. No-one sane would disagree with that, right?

fyngyrz: "Enterprise was awesome. Especially in HD. Great characters (ok, the captain was a little wooden), t'pol, decent continuity instead of the rabid randomness of TOS and TNG and the various spin offs, quite a bit of decent CGI, good sets, more than one or two believable aliens, t'pol, some nice — and well integrated — re-visits of TOS concepts, and t'pol. Oh, and t'pol. And you 9-year olds complain about the theme song(s). Wait'll you reach puberty and take a look at t'pol again. Did I mention Enterprise had a character named t'pol? Yeah. Totally. Amazingly. Hot. And a great character as well. The counter-universe episodes were WAY better than TOS or TNG attempts at same. But hey, you guys get back to buffy, the vampire craver, or (cough) Dr. Who-the-heck-would-call-this-worth-watch.... You're the same people that lost us Firefly. Your taste is all in your twitter feeds."

Yeah, like I said. No-one sane disagrees.

(Seriously though, "Your taste is all in your twitter feeds" is my new favorite insult.)

Many thought that this news was a sign for Whedon to finally walk away from Fox altogether:

OlavRokne: "OMG! RUJK? Joss Whedon got burned for trusting Fox? Did they cancel a series before it had a chance to build an audience? Did they not even air all the episodes? HOW IS THIS A SURPRISE?"

thatoneguy42: "*sigh* Wheedon, Wheedon, Wheedon. i liked dollhouse. but man. newscorp is bad news man. you can do better than them."

Frank Sinister: "You know what? I'm glad. Because as much as I was enjoying Dollhouse, (the ONLY show I make a point to watch live, thank you, Fox,) this will finally sever Joss's ties with them once and for all. Then he can go get all the independent funding we all know he deserves and make shows we all want to watch WITH NO NETWORK INTERFERENCE. Point me to the URL Joss."

Belabras Ate My Baby!: "Ugh. I wondered why Whedon was working with Fox in the first place, and now I wonder even more. It's like he's Barton Fink and they only keep him around to write things so they can crap all over them."

acrobatic rabbit: "*heavy sigh* Whedon. Really man, we need to have a sit-down. Now listen, it would be better for us fans if you didn't jerk us around with your apparent lack of self importance when dealing with these fucktards at Fox. Ok? Seriously. You can do better. Please. DO BETTER!!! Do another Firefly? Look, you can even cast Eliza as Inara's "client", eh? Sort of a nudge, nudge to the Dollhouse fans. eh??? eh??? mmmm... Eliza and Inara...."

alphanumeric1971:"Joss Whedon. a brilliant writer, bad decision maker."

SahilaLeda: "Oh lookie. Fox screwing over Whedon fans. It's odd, but I have the weirdest sense of deja fu. You know, that feeling that somehow, somewhere, you've been kicked in the head like this before."

Christopher Greer: "Raise your hand if your shocked. Hopefully, once Fox is done fucking Dollhouse over Whedon will stop going back to them. (You'd think he'd learned his lesson after how he was treated on Firefly.) "

Jim Topoleski: "Seriously Joss..... STOP SELLING YOU STUFF TO FUCKING FOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really, just stop... you do it again we will hunt you down. Dont you know fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me?"

LucianaCbazon: "Jesus, its like Whedon is trapped in some domestic abuse special. How many times does Fox have to put cigarettes out on his back before he leaves them. Oh no, this time its going to be different. Fox says they really love me, they've quit drinking and everythings going to be great. I'll know when its time to leave. When Lifetime makes the Whedon biopic, his part will be played by Yasmine Bleeth."

Yowza, that last line is more cruel than having your series pulled out from underneath you by Fox executives who have done an appallingly bad job of hiding their distaste for your work all along. Another running theme from commenters? Dollhouse dislike coming out of the Whedon-closet:

Crenshaw13: "C'mon Fox, it's like you're canceling shows that absolutely no one is watching or something."

mcmachete: "Oh no! Where will I get my fix of boring, overhyped show with lots of potential? Bring on the flame."

Jonathan Green: "See, I'd be more upset with this, except Dollhouse was bad. I mean, I'm a big Joss Whedon fan, and I really tried to watch Dollhouse out of devotion, but...it was just so BAD. So yeah, not really suprised or frustrated by this. I still pray nightly that somehow T:SCC won't get canned."

Pope John Peeps II: "I hate to say it but Dollhouse was in a bad place to begin with. The first episode was a little bit silly and formulaic, and then the second episode started to go right into super-creepy town. When you slap those two things together, you're looking at a really small, small audience. Hell, I watch Firefly religiously and I still don't care for Dollhouse very much."

Dryftwood: "are people really that upset about the final dollhouse not airing? The show continuously fails to catch my interest week in and week out. I mean to each their own right? But this is no surprise to me."

Solipsistic Nation: "As a recent Whedon convert I anxiously anticipated Dollhouse. The rumors started to fly that the Fox execs weren't happy with the pilot and Whedon went back to re-shoot it. Fine. Whatever. Maybe these were necessary compromises to make Dollhouse work for Fox. But then I saw the pilot for Dollhouse and I was underwhelmed. But I came back the following week and was disappointed again. And again. And again. It was only with last week's episode that I became excited about the show. Hell, the should have used that as the pilot! I don't know who is to blame for Dollhouse's blahness. Whedon? Fox? Both? In any case, based on what I've seen I'm not surprised that Dollhouse is going to the Attic."

Talk about kicking a show when it's down. I'll be the first to admit that the show was never perfect - and more than once, veered towards downright bad - but, come on people. Show some respect for the probably deceased, please. I hope that you're all more respectful when Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is cancelled.

So Raimi told Empire that he didn't have creative control over the third Spider-Man movie, and that Venom and other elements weren't exactly his decision. But do you care? Let's see:

FakingThroughLife: "Yeah, being forced to include Venom doesn't explain the rest of the movie - such as signing and dancing and emo-Parker. God awful movie when compared to the first two."

edosan: "I don't buy it. It was still a lousy movie from beginning to end, and you'd think the director could have helped with that."

OW-Holmes: "That movie was truly awful. I couldn't stop laughing when Peter accidentally hit MJ. Everyone in the theater looked at me funny, but I think they were just jealous that they didn't get the joke."

Evlsushi: "Even if he hated Venom, what sense does it make to produce a shitty movie? Take Venom, tweak him, and make a great, somewhat original story. Like the brilliant X3. Just kidding. But seriously, Raimi didn't even try to make the Venom story work. Or "spooky panel of Studio Execs" as he would have us believe. Yes, studios are controlling, but he was coming off of a critically acclaimed sequel, so that excuse sounds fishy."

LouisHaeru: "'Wow, the fanboys sure hated Spiderman 3, I guess I'll just join the flock and pretend I hated it, too!' C'mon, Raimi, it surely wasn't the best of the Spiderman flicks (probably the worst, but not by much), but seriously? Stick to your guns. Lame."

Kell06: "All through the movie release, Sam Raimi was talking about how happy he was with the movie, how good it was, etc etc. I strongly disliked a lot of the movie, but either way, what a cop-out. To try and have it both ways like that, pretending to support it to ensure plenty of publicity, then to cover his ass after the critical and fan slag-off - talk about a lack of integrity from someone who I thought stood on his own two feet."

What's the world coming to when a man can't publicly disown a shitty movie by pretending that someone else put him up to it? Sure, I'll grant you that he didn't go all the way and claim that the movie was actually directed by his evil twin, Flim-Flam Raimi - Like you wouldn't want to see an interview where he tried that one - but, come on. He's just admitting that it wasn't the greatest of movies and trying to wash his hands of the whole affair before embarking on a sequel to it. We've all been there.

It has to be said, though; I'm with the fans of the campy dance numbers:

Spideyrex: "Hey I liked them! It was silly and fun. People forget that Peter Parker is still a dorky little kid, that was his version of being bad-ass. Yes it was embarrassing to watch, but that was the point."

kelz: "I think people took it too seriously and didn't understand that it was a dorky kid's attempt to look cool. I found it funny and campy."

Quilt: "It really was the only part of the movie where I genuinely enjoying myself. It was just so stupid and ridiculous."

FrankSinister: "I still stand by Raimi despite the eye-raping awfulness of Spiderman 3. Its obvious that it was a warning to Sony to keep their retarded mouths shut when telling him what to put in his movies. 'Oh yeah? You're gonna tell me what to do? How about I single-handedly decimate your largest franchise and USE YOUR OWN MONEY TO DO IT?' Well played Sam. Stand your ground."

Well, wait a minute. I'm not sure I buy this whole "He meant to make something crappy" theory... That's like saying that Enterprise was subpar to make people excited for the new Star Trek movie (says the boy watching reruns on HDNet and kind of enjoying them)... But at least with him agreeing that the third one wasn't any good means that the fourth one will be better, right? Unless we end up with the clone saga...

(Yes, the poll should only have had three options, but accidentally ended up with two extras, called Answer 4 and Answer 5, to the amusement of many. Oops.)

At time of writing, more people were voting to keep the term "nerd" alive for future generations than wanted it gone, but the comments showed that many people were, perhaps, uncertain as to what the definition of nerd actually is:

geeky_cylon: "See, my understanding of nerd was that it was a point of no return, someone who pretty much doesn't do anything cool at all. Your definition of 'nerd' sounds more like a 'geek' to me - a self-aware lover of nerd-like things, but someone who has fun with it and may do a few cool things here and there. Maybe my stance comes from where I grew up, who I grew up with, or what I watched over the years. Not sure."

sweetchuck: "I always thought of nerd as the smarter than average but socially comfortable end of the spectrum. Geek was a little more awkward, and more specialized (video games, trek, etc). Dork was where you didn't want to be - not necessarily smarter, definitely not social, and entrenched in his interests."

QuenbyKoliha: "A Nerd to me, has always been the pinnacle of Geek. A Geek isn't smart enough to be a Nerd, but they all share the same social paradigm (Gaming, Sci-Fi, Etc...) Nerds have a true genius, combined with drive... where as Geeks may or may not be "intelligent" - they just don't fit with 'pop culture' But, I'd have to say the description is way off. Nerds were, and always will be the most pretensous people of all! Not too sure it should be retired at all... Anyone famous was at least a Geek growing up. Band Geek, Theater Geek, Computer Geek they all be came our rock/movie stars and CEOs. They still do! There's still a lot of 'Stan Gables' out there! (And if you have to google that, you're a Geek, not a Nerd)"

Aristeia: "For me, nerd does imply greater than average intelligence (particularly in specific fields, like physics, math, computer science, etc.), but more importantly it means social awkwardness. A lack of affect, an inability to connect with people in a normal way. Nerds tend to speak and think literally, have little use for humor that isn't 'at their level,' and tend to assume they're the smartest person in the room. Such nerds often correct everyone else, even when the person was being facetious or ironic.

"Geeks also tend to be of greater than average intelligence, but their focus isn't necessarily on academics or being 'superior' - it's about a love of technology, music, games, w/e... it's about having passion for something(s) to such an extent that it borders on obsessive. But being a geek doesn't mean you have to be socially awkward. It's quite possible to be geeky but have lots of so-called 'normal' friends. Of course, some geeks are also nerds.

"Dork is usually an affectionate term (or insulting one, depending on who made the statement and against whom) which implies a sort of goofiness, off-kilter humor or awkwardness. Dork has nothing to do w/ intelligence or interests - it's about being that guy who's singing on the street just for fun. It's about making reaaallly corny jokes for the ironic laugh. Most people have dorky moments; pure dorks are rare, as far as i've seen.

"For me, i'm a geek who hangs w/ both hardcore geeks and fairly normal people, and i have my occasional dorky moments. But i am not a nerd. :P"

AsherCadmium: "You have it pretty much on the nose, here. Everyone seems to know the correct definition of nerd; it's someone who is very intelligent, but usually not so good in social situations. You may find a lot of people in this category land somewhere on the autistic spectrum. This is definitely not a bad thing, even Einstein is suspected to have been mildly autistic and everyone loves Einstein. It's just that considering the behaviors of mild autism it's easier to understand nerds. Their brains are very capable of storage and use of complex ideas and formulas, but when it comes to social interaction that seems normal for the rest of us they can be a bit flustered and awkward. They can definitely like that same things as geeks, but they approach it from a different and more methodical angle. Geek is what most of the io9 crowd falls into. We are usually a bit above the average intelligence range and more socially adept than our nerd friends (though this is DEFINITELY not always the case). Geeks love vintage video games because they are awesome and not because they are currently hip to say that you like. We debate things like Superman vs. Jean Grey or how the zombie apocalypse would pan out because we actually have sat and thought about this for hours and have a well-planned argument on hand. We have interests like techie gadgets, sci-fi novels or making steampunk accessories. We start working on Halloween costumes months in advance. We learn to play the Mario theme song on some random instrument. We just do this stuff because it's fun and it's what we like. The modern geek is comfortable in their own skin (for the most part) because it's not worth the trouble to fake that we love 'normal people' pursuits just so that we fit in. There are enough proud geeks in the world now that we fit in just fine. Dorks often mistake themselves for geeks, but any geek can spot the difference a mile away. Dorks are usually perfectly nice people, maybe a little more socially adept, definitely have the same capacity for intelligence as geeks, but they just don't have 'it'. They are funky artist-types, Halo or other mainstream X-Box playing frat boys and their 'let you take pictures of me flubbing my way through Guitar Hero in my underwear to post online' girlfriends, the store-bought Batman costume, the hipsters, the Hot Topic punks and so on. Dwight Schrute is their favorite character on 'The Office', but that's is as far as they go. When some hot actress is quoted in FHM saying that she likes video games then she is usually just a dork, or lying to boost her fanbase (unless she is the lovely Mila Kunis who we somehow managed to have on our team.) I don't want to say any group is better or worse. I don't think any of these words are insults anymore. If we took them away from the trash-talkers and made it our own then we don't have to worry about losing it to the marketing machine because it has no soul. If you invent a new word to call ourselves then we just have to hammer out all of these little details again, anyways. We aren't and never were rebels. Share the wealth and treat every class of people the same otherwise we become what had once tried to keep us down."

EaterofFood may have it most correctly:

In a lot of cases geek and nerd are interchangeable, at least as far as the general public is concerned. That said, what are we going to replace it with?

Wait, replace it? Not necessary, according to OW-Holmes:

We need to take back control of the "N-Word". Sure its been co-opted and nicely packaged by Hollywood. But just because bits and pieces have been monetized doesn't mean we the word has lost meaning. Saying you spent all night playing video games or that you were first in line for watchmen still has a negative connotation. I still cant talk about my team work experience playing TF2 during a job interview without being laughed at.

To paraphrase Paul Mooney, "Everyone wants to be a nerd, but no one wants to be a nerd."

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak is pretty much over the whole idea of this conversation:

Hate to be the party pooper here, but this is pretty much "Trekkie/Trekker" on a larger scale. Nobody cares but us, and everybody else is going to keep using the terms interchangeably, and probably is going to use whichever term you dislike most to describe you.

NotArthurPDragon is similarly unimpressed:

Actually, this is a typical nerd response to having something considered "theirs" become successful so of course you have to turn on it...nerd.

It's best, in cases like these, to leave the last word to Lassus:

If I hear one more hot girl saying that she loves nerdy boys, I'm going to throw my 12-sided die at my plastic glasses sitting on my Atari 5200 case mod.

NO, YOU DON'T, ACTUALLY.

(That being said, I have none of those things. Call me.)

13enster: "The Further Proof of the Decline of Western Civilization Channel"

Final: "Every Cable Channel needs a Wrestling Show but we were too cheap to go after Kaiju Big Battel"

LarsThorwald: "We Are Not Above Marketing an Original Movie About a Giant Snake and Starring Chase Masterson as a Major Television Event in Every Single Commercial Break"

oboesqueaks: "Being A Broadcast Network That Specializes In Pictorial Representations Of A Technical and Supernatural Nature - The Only Place Where You Can Find Purple Nazi Monsters"

SuperTuna: "The Ooo - that looks/sounds interesting. Oops looks like it was another Animal turned into man's worst fears made for (turned off) TV movie channel"

Lassus: "The Everyone Hates The Genre That Cannot be Named Network"

AlyssaAnaxo: "The We Can't Tell The Difference Between Science Fiction and Horror Channel"

TarynO: "The If they shot it in Vancouver then it's on our channel channel"

BeccaSaurus: "The We've Lost Our Way, But What's It To You? Wanna Make Something Of It? Channel"

ElsaBabby: "The Acne Network Shut Your Fucking Yaws Shit, You Farscapers YELL! The We Really Wanted to Work For Lifetime Channel The What is Science? And What is Fiction? Station The Damn I Thought I was Working for the Other Michael Jackson When I Was Promoted Channel SyFlyByNight I Cant Spel But I Kin Txt Chanel The English Channel Why Won't This Network Die Already Place on The Cable Box KSFY: All The Crap NBC Doesn't Want Cap'n Syphilis Network I Thought "Demographics" Meant Demonstrating Onion Slicers and Oxy-Clean Our Viewers Really Don't Live With Their Parents? But the Dream Was So Real! Why You don't Hold Your Meeting on Branding at 4:20 KPox What Will We Do When Our Usual Actors Bail on Us They Shoot Networks, Don't They? Kick Me, I'm a Cable Channel It's SyFy, Not Sissy!" (But mostly because I like to pretend that that's all one name.)

QuantAnteater: "The Proof That All the Good Names Have Been Taken Channel"

Bloodboiler: "Scary Door" (I have to admit, I love the idea of a network called "Scary Door." I would totally tune in just to see what the hell was on.)

KoopaLee: "The 'Things We'll Never See In Our Lifetime, So Don't Get Too Excited' Channel"

IngramAmyntor: "The We Don't Care About Our Viewers And Never Did Which Is Why We're Doing Our Damndest To Alienate Them Channel"

ShinjiniPyrrha: "You won't find 'Sex and The City' rerun here Network."

Remember, SciFi/SyFy execs... We're available for all manner of consulting work. And we're very, very cheap.

(* - Yeah, I have no idea how I managed to repeat #15-17. That's what I get for rearranging them after I'd written the post first time out.)

For those who missed this incredible example of snark, here's all you need to know: A Bay Area fan saw the future San Francisco in the latest trailer for JJ Abrams' Star Trek and wondered whatever happened to the city's zoning laws to keep large buildings out. Now, here's what you thought:

SanvaliEquiflux: "in 300 years san fransisco probably wont even exist... i'd be happy that they are using it in the movie so shut up."

Robotic Bilbo Bagins has no use for fleshy ones: "Ugh. It's a movie! And you know, I'm sure a good deal of people just think of San Francisco as just another city."

Balius: "I'm willing to compromise here. We'll pretend that there were a lot of protests about the zoning law changes, and more protests about the mega buildings first being built, but ultimately the corrupt politico-types overruled the noble native of the once beautiful city. In return, we'll simply agree that none of that has any relevance at all to a gorram Star Trek movie set in an alternative timeline future Earth."

geesejuggler: "Out of all the flaws with the new Star Trek, that's your problem? This guy taken this a little too very far. And this is coming from a person who get into a heated debate on 'who's a bigger douche, Lois Lane or Lex Luthor' with her own family! lol"

Garrison Dean: "Jesus. You know what else they don't have in San Fran right now? Starships."

Kurt Roithinger: "gee whiz. in DS9, they put a second story onto the golden gate bridge. sacreliege, i say! i do love the '300 years from now, buildings couldn't possibly be that tall' angle. 300 years ago, anything more than 3 stories was practically a skyscraper or a cathedral."

hopskipper: "Let's summarize here: Giant alien beasts = fine. Black holes = no problem. Imploding planets = I buy that. Extremely tall buildings in SF = LUDICROUS!!!"

Randy Kiessig: "Seriously bro, its a movie.. a Science FICTION movie. And to top all that off, its set in the FUTURE."

Lou Zucaro: "His reasoning about the size of the buildings is ridiculous. It's 300 years between now and then. He says there's no photographic evidence from San Francisco's past to show that buildings could grow in size that much in 300 years. Well, on the one hand, he's right, since there were no photographs 300 years ago. On the other hand, there is no other hand, because it's a stupid argument."

shaithis: "There are millions of Star Trek geeks right now saying. Jesus, what a nerd!"

Thankfully, Twisk knows what the real intent of the complaint was:

So us Star Trek fans need to boycott San Francisco then, right? Got it.

As someone who moved from San Francisco relatively recently, I now have a new reason to give when people ask me why. Thanks, Trek Fandom!

I speak, of course, of the Secret Origins Of Explosions (And The Walking Away From In Slow Motion Thereof), brought on by this week's new X-Men Origins: Wolverine trailer. PVIII asked the obvious question:

how come no one ever looks at the big explosion they've caused? They're always walkin' with their backs to 'em. I mean, if I were the impetus of widespread destruction, I'd probably take at least a picture or something.

And suddenly, there was so much explanation, I thought we were all back in the middle of that Battlestar Galactica episode where Anders and Ellen told us everything we ever wanted to know about cylons but were afraid to ask:

gaming09: "ever look into a hot flame, gotta squint so its pointless either way, plus u can smile when not facing it adn be like, shit i just blew something up, yeahhh...imma get a beer, and f* that bitch sally"

braak: "This was actually answered in an issue of Doctor McNinja: it turns out, by not looking at the explosion, and casually walking away from it as though it doesn't exist, you become completely immune to the effects. Explosions are kind of big, passive-aggressive attention hogs. If you ignore them, they can't hurt you."

geesejuggler: "Becuase only losers looks back and oogle at the explosion they just made. Not looking back says "Yeah, I know it was awesome but I'm awesomer, punk!" Besides, if you look back, you might flinch from the debris flying. Only wimps flinch!"

I'd like to take this opportunity to proudly own my wimpage. But PVIII wasn't satisfied:

Now explain the slow-motion.

Luckily, the exposition torrent continued:

NerD!!!: "There were no slo-mo-walking-away-from-explosions... scenes before John Woo. They hadn't been created yet. John Woo had to create them. Once he did, they've never been separated. Sure occasionally slo-mo will go off with somebody else (Zack Snyder), and explosions well, they'll go around with anybody.... I lost my train of thought, and I just know I need to rent Broken Arrow again."

Not that everyone was all about the learning, when it came to the Wolverine trailer; some of you wondered what the hell was going on with the other mutants:

jbq: "Cyclops was kind of a let-down. Why de-hunk the guy? Haven't you guys in Hollywood already made the poor sap suffer enough on screen, but you had to get a big-ass nerd to play him now?"

TomSkylark: "Actually, Scott's pretty much always been something of an awkward guy. He was the shy, quiet one out of the original five students, and only in recent years (with some really deliberate re-writings of the characters personality in response to new situations) has he become anything approaching a 'hunk' or badass."

tande04: "Whedon had the best Cyclops. I think thats just because he effectively turned him into Wes from Angel and Wes always was my favorite character."

Min-T: "Real quick: isn't Deadpool, like, horribly disfigured and must wear a mask? Why is he, you know, played by the very hunky Ryan Reynolds? Unless this is during the time where his healing factor was increased or whatever and he looked normal... but I thought that was way later. Or should I just completely disregard any knowledge I have of the actual comic and characters."

Joshua Gacusana: "I say just disregeard the knowledge based on this is hollywood and the tend to muck up the stories and characters rather extensively. See Venom/Topher. /End my fanboy ranting"

AngryEddy: "I always figured that actors had a clause in their superhero contracts that required 73% of screen time was spent showing their faces - which is why in every damn Spider-Man movie, Tobey's mask gets torn to pieces show half his face is exposed (or he just loses it entirely). I suspect Ryan Reynolds wouldn't be keen on a mask hiding his face the whole time either, but they could work around that by having more of his face remain undamaged. Or maybe Ryan Reynolds is so damn cool that he'd just roll with it. Do it Ryan. Do it for the fans."

The above clause, of course, is called "The Sylvester Stallone in Judge Dredd OH GOD WHY Clause." Overall, though, I was happily surprised to see that people were relatively optimistic about this movie that I, sadly, have to admit seems completely unnecessary and a few years too late. Not that I'm actively hating on it, like JeffriesTuber, who offers up this thoughtful critique:

It's not nice to use the word 'retarded.' It's insensitive. But I will say that this looks gay.

Thankfully, the love for the film can overpower the hate, as this touching exchange shows:

Zach Ingalsbe: "holy shit, I'm going to kill someone.

I have a fucking Deadpool tattoo, and they have ruined the character.

yep

people will die"

Alizarin: "You do realize that well, this is how it works right? I mean, I don't want to hear it I'm a Phantom of the Opera fan (um book not musical). Hahaha. My boy (yes I have a tattoo too) has been mutilated in well over 12 movie adaptions, and several stage and TV ones too. This is only one for Deady. He might get more, and they might, eventually get it whatever is 'right.' In your eyes. (Not that they've gotten mine right...yet) I'm not saying this to be combative, I'm just trying to talk you down off the ledge. You sound angrier than I was when I found good ol' predictable Timmy Burton cast Johnny Depp as The Madhatter. I don't want anyone to have to feel that way."

Feel the love, you cynical motherfuckers. Between this and the explosion history lessons, there's no way that you people can't feel proud about what you give back to the site. Pat yourselves on the back... and then walk away in slow motion. You deserve it.

To be fair, at least the vote was fairly close, with 35% wanting Annalee to keep telling you how much the show blows every week, against 24% wanting it all to stop, already (To the 6% who said they'd rather see Dancing With The Stars recaps, be careful what you wish for). I didn't catch this week's Heroes until last night, thanks to the wonders of DVR, and... I have to admit feeling Annalee's pain. And you want to make her keep doing this for weeks? Seriously? That said, I'm not sure I'd go as far as Roland21:

This show now take the prize: WORST SHOW OF 2000s! Kudos to Kring an the crap-awfully team writer!

Apparently you haven't seen Life on Mars recently, my friend.

I have to admit, I loved corvus.imbrifer's impassioned plea for just why Annalee should stay with the recaps:

Must keep recapping, Ms Newitz! It is a duty to television, the genre, and the community. In this new age of reciprocal media, the makers of television need to hear more than just the voices of the Unquestioning True Faithful. Otherwise we abandon television to the uncritical and undiscriminating. We might as well get a CW lobotomy and be done with it.

'Heroes' was has always been wobbly for me, but I like to be able to voice why in literate, thoughtful terms. Recapping helps with that. It may have fallen on hard times, but I'm no fair weather friend. I will bitch till they fix it. But just saying 'Meh' isn't sufficient, proper criticism is needed. Similarly, I loved 'Supernatural' like no other. It was /about/ something, and had unexpected depth. Then it got stupid. Astoundingly so. Did I just switch off, thinking 'oh well' or did I voice my complaints, hoping somehow that the Gods of Television would hear and be inveigled to return to greatness? Even if it meant courting the wrath of the devotees of La Ackles (who can hear no wrong spoken)?

I know, I know, "it's just a TV show, stop mistaking Kring for Kipling. Or Kripke for Kafka." But there are objective standards, right? Are we allowed to have standards? Oh, well. If nothing else, hopefully, the recaps and the discussions that follow will help the writers of tomorrow be better writers. To the barricades, Ms Newitz! I have my big red flag.

That kind of thing makes me feel even more guilty that I haven't been writing up Chuck these past few weeks. Tuesday, I will, okay? Promise. It wasn't all bold urges to keep upper lips stiff and Heroes hate, however; while Bonniegrrl singlehandedly came up with a plan to improve the show in two easy steps (Now, if it was a musical episode directed by David Lynch, everyone would have to tune in, out of morbid curiosity, at least), other people were talking about shows that they'd rather see us recap instead:

JillianBean: "Recap 'Burn Notice' or 'Life'. Those two shows are fluffy fun. And both have awesome geek cred; Tricia Helfer (Number 6) occasionally on 'Burn Notice' and Christina Hendricks (Saffron from 'Firefly') occasionally on 'Life'."

Discodave: "Recap Tom Baker's run on Doctor Who so I can pretend I actually saw more than just City of Death and that one about the robots with beaded braids." (To Mr. Disco: Are you more of a Peter Davison fan, then?)

BullLifter: "Start recapping Reaper when it comes back!"

Min-T: "Start recapping Supernatural. It's getting interesting now that one (or both) of the brothers is evil."

flandria: "Recap The Closer, lol, they use computers sometimes."

rachaeljean: "I vote for a 'Sci Fi Classics' recap - kind of like Wil Wheaton's reviews of old TNG episodes. Sure, you wouldn't have all the behind-the-scenes info he has, but you could still do quality, entertaining pieces full of MST3K-style word snark! :) And You Tube clips for fun and profit!"

mudderofcamdem: "Long as you dont recap Knight Rider I am good."

Interested parties may, of course, remember that we did use to recap Knight Rider, before our gag reflex kicked back in. Some of the shows mentioned above have been discussed within the shared mindspace we call io9, and Supernatural in particular is a strong contender to make it on the site. Personally, I'd love to see Meredith unleashed on Sci-Fi Classics, but I'm not sure she'd thank me for that. All I know is that I'm never going to ask if you people whether or not I should stop writing things about movie that'll get other bloggers attacking me, because I'm not sure that my ego could withstand being accused of bloviating on a regular basis...

I'll admit; I don't even really see how Universal could really do a movie solely based on the original series in light of the success and acceptance of the Ron Moore's reboot - Not only is the new show Battlestar Galactica to the majority of people these days, but how could any new new version not pick up on some of the themes of the reboot when they themselves are picked up from the original? Apparently, though, the idea definitely appeals to some of you:

lazlopnik: "screw it. why not. after the morose trainwreck that the rebooted series has become larson could do no worse. after all his would be an implausible, ridiculous mush of shiny, clean rag tag fleeters fleeing instead of implausible, ridiculous mush of dark & gritty brand rag tag fleeters fleeing. just another flavour of crap on the all crap buffet that is battlestar."

aixelsyd: "I'd gladly give it a shot. As just a 2 hour movie, it would satisfy me immensely to relive the version of mu youth with better effects and acting."

madman83: "I hate to go against the majority here but I beleive that the original series is and always will be better than the Sci Fi channel reboot.It maybe one of the reason I haven't been able to get behind the more recent BSG."

Dillenger69: "Capes and humor are two things the current incarnation of BSG currently lacks. I welcome any version possessing the two."

Daniel-Midnight: "Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict FTW."

Look, I love Dirk Benedict as much as the next man who grew up watching The A Team, but this whole idea - never mind that a movie based on the original that ignores the far superior reboot, but that a movie based on the original that ignores the far superior reboot and is somehow better for it - boggles my mind. Daveinva puts it best:

I loved the old BSG. . . when I was *five*. Star Wars was so cool, I needed my sci-fi action fix anywhere I could get it. Wait, you mean, there's a *TV show* like that? AWESOME!!!

The new BSG, however, is one of the best TV shows ever. (Yes, I'll defend that, it's not hyberbole— it's stumbled, but when it soars, it *soars*). It's certainly one of the best *science fiction* TV shows ever (sadly, not many competitors)— mostly because it takes itself, AND the audience, seriously.

A few years back when I first started dating my GF, I nudged her into getting into the new BSG. Never liked sci-fi, never liked much genre stuff, had never seen the original. She *loves* the new show, and devoured it voraciously.

Watching it through her eyes, I finally decided about six months ago to show her the original series. Just the "movie" (the first three episodes or so), and the Kobol episode. I myself hadn't seen the show in probably a decade, so it was going to be a treat to see how similar/different it all was.

Folks, I know that the nostalgia prevents us from slamming a show made in a more innocent time, one made when we were all FARRR younger than we are now.

But it's awful. Legitimately *painful* to watch. Objectively cringe-inducing at nearly every turn.

Even if you accept it as cheese, even if you accept the bizarre production values and soap-opera-style casting, even if you lower your standards about as low as you can go. . . it's still awful.

And in comparison, it makes the new series look like Shakespeare.

Which, in a way, I accept it as such. Meaning, it's the same "story" as before, but the production is so much better, so different, so fleshed-out and used to take it in such a different direction, that there really isn't much to compare the two at all. It's like Olivier doing Hamlet and your local high school doing Hamlet— same play, but *c'mon*.

I'm now completely curious, because I had a similar reaction on seeing an episode from the original series recently. To those of you who like the original in some way other than as camp, why? And is it in any way translatable to a new movie?

The problem for some people isn't necessarily the involvement of the Wachowskis, but the idea of rebooting Superman's movie career at all:

Evlsushi: "lease stop making Superman movies. There are far more interesting franchises to work with right now. I'm tired of revamping a series, having it bomb and trying to start it again (Hulk, much?). While I think that Superman Returns wasn't as bad as people say it was, this franchise needs a break. It doesn't really connect with today's audience like it once did. Superman never went through a legitimate maturation that's needed with older superhero icons. I'm speaking, of course, about the film and television adaptions. I think that there was a lot of promise in a show like Smallville, but that show got so far off track, it's not even funny. They need to make Superman more relateable and sympathetic character. Right now he's still a douche with too many powers and no real issues."

Trae: "Here's the thing — it's impossible to make a *good* Superman movie... because it's Superman. Either the movie will be Okay, or it will be terrible. Those are your two options. The problem is the character lacks the depth required to delve into a darker plot while still being true to the source material on any level."

AngryEddy: "I'm falling into a dangerous Opinion Trap here, but I have to disagree that a "good" Superman movie cannot be made. In the right hands, I can easily picture a Superman movie that uses his source material to add a slightly rough edge to the film without making an emo mockery of the Man of Steel."

NotArthurPDragon: "So basically unless a character is 'dark' [they] can't be explored in an interesting manner? That's genius. And by 'genius' I mean narrow-minded if not right flat out stupid."

TheSuperBrando: "Your post perfectly sums up the popular thinking in modern American culture. But I think it's wrong. Superman shows us our ideals, and how they could exist in the real world. Superman shows how someone can inspire us to be better people while living in a nasty world. There are still some people in the world who are virtuous and serving as inspiration to the rest of us. Mother Tereasa and MLK are two that immediately come to mind; people who held firmly to their virtues and ideals and inspired the world to be better. It's just too bad that modern American pop culture is too blinded by the anti-hero. You have to BE evil to FIGHT evil. Virtues are lies. Ideals are false. It's just a shame that so many people believe that garbage, and because of that people think Superman has to become dark to be in a movie."

daveNYC: "It's one thing to inspire people to be better, it's another to actually be the representation of all that is ideal. The problem with Superman movies isn't that the character isn't dark, it's that the character is shown to be perfectly (and unrealisticly) good and pure. Look at Superman Returns, despite knowing that he managed to knock up Lois, because of the way the character was done, it's hard to imagine him actually having sex. It's not that he's too good, it's that he's not even human anymore."

Of course, for others, it is the Wachowskis that we have to worry about:

ShadowBottle: "I bet the first one they do will be BAD ASS! Of course all the subsequent superman movies they make afterward will completely invalidate the one bad ass one they make."

cletar: "The Wachowskis? Seriously? They'll just churn it into suck chowder. It'll make people beg for the mediocrity of 'Superman Returns.' Let Nolan do one. Film Dark Night Returns, and let Batman beat the crap out of him. That at least would be different. Or, make it take place in the 1940s. Or maybe the 1960s. Give it a vintage feel. Explore what a world with a Superman would be like. Don't try to update it. Please, no more origin. Every moviegoer on Earth knows who Superman is. We don't need to see him learning to leap over barns."

SundaySunday: "How about a Coen Brothers' Superman where a quiet, misunderstood P. I. enlists the help of the real Superman to futilely try to dissuade George Reeves from committing suicide? Or a Farrely Brothers' Superman, where a world-weary and universally rejected Clark Kent is forced to live in a trailer park and eat dog food while he slowly becomes infatuated with the property manager's daughter?"

Good to see SundaySunday here again in tidy attire and with such good ideas; admit it. You'd kill to see a Coen Brothers Superman movie. Or, at least, you would if you weren't commenter Counterglow, who seems to have a bug up his/her ass about superhero movies in general:

"When did science fiction degenerate to the level of "comic book of the week"? There's so many rocking-good stories to tell, and all we're seeing is re-boots of pulp fiction as deep as a puddle. Enough of this bullshit, already.

Thankfully, Rasselas has the right idea:

Haven't Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely recently published fairly detailed storyboards for the ultimate Superman movie? That was a comic book? Seriously?

Dear Warner Bros., listen to this man. He is correct.

Alternatively, go back to what I said six months ago, and listen to me. And, please? Don't let the Wachowskis anywhere near Clark. I don't think he's survive the experience.

Meredith wrote about Robert Rodriguez' attempts to bring back the alien killing machine this week, and let's just say that Hollywood Execs are apparently a much easier sell than you guys:

Belabras: "You know, nobody ever talks about doing a reboot of Citizen Kane. Leave the classics the fuck alone Hollywood."

iameleveneight: "Fuck reboot, Predator doesn't need a reboot, it needs a proper sequel not the abortions that are AVP."

Robotic Bilbo Bagins has no use for fleshy ones: "Ugh. Look Hollywood there are plenty of little known sci-fi things out there that need the raping. I'd rather see new bad movies then remakes of old bad movies."

dead_red_eyes: "Dear Hollywood, Enough with the fucking reboots already. Come up with some original ideas for once, you wankers. And while I'm at it, quit remaking Asian films for American audiences."

geesejuggler: "Why do we even need a reboot of Predator? The first one is awesome as is!"

Quilt: "They should re-release Predator into the theaters. That would be 10 times better then a terrible re-boot. It would likely be far cheaper for the studio as well."

Nefilim: "PLEASE NO! WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS TO ME! JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. here is two cents, go buy a fucking ORIGINAL IDEA! There is no way you can reboot what was already a classic...people are fucking stupid!"

J_Frank_Parnell: "That does it. I have officially given up on Hollywood. Good day, Sirs."

Happily, not everyone was so quick to give up on ol' Tinsel Town. Some, in fact, knew exactly how to reboot the franchise:

OldDog1:"Here is my idea for a re-boot. Remember the movie "Zulu" with Michael Caine? Ok, flash forward several hundred years and on another planet far, far away. One hndred and thirty nine Marines, many of them sick or wonded, hold a stratigic point agains 4000 screaming aliens."

CentipedeDamascus: "This movie needs to star The Rock, Vin Diesel, Hugh Jackman, Mickey Rourke, and Bruce Willis. I submit that would be even BETTER than the original."

Of course, let's take another look at the original, while we're at it:

Stueymon: "Ya know, i always thought predator was kinda gay. Arnie was always sucking on that thick cigar, the mid air arm-wrestle with bulging muscles, the men are almost constantly semi naked and glistening with sweat. then you've got the predator whose face looks like some Freudian vagina. I loved predator, dont get me wrong it's one of my all time fave films, i just couldn't help notice you had a bunch of sweaty shirtless muscle men, none of them sexually interested in the one girl around them and fighting an alien fangpussy that kills butch men but leaves cute girls alone."

Suddenly I feel the desperate need to watch Predator again to see it in this new light. And, trust me, I haven't felt any kind of need to watch Predator in years, because it's terrible. I can't quite work out if this is some kind of validation of io9 commenters, or condemnation. While I try and work that out, let's have crashedpc take us out for the week:

I laughed at the one line plot summary. I was expecting like this epic description of the jungle, the circumstances, the team of commandos, the predator itself, anything to justify this remake of a 20+ year old movie, and all I get is

In the reboot a team of commandoes face down a mysterious race of vicious monsters.

AAHHHHAHAHAH sorry I'm weird

I think we can all agree that the first couple of episodes of the new season were eye-searingly wonderful, right?

AngryEddy: "I was so happy LOST was back on, and it was going so great - right up until Kate's stupid face appeared on screen. I wonder if the writers sat around thinking 'How can we make Kate even more annoying?' and then one shouted 'ADD AN ANNOYING KID!!!' and now I have to suffer knowing that these two equally obnoxious characters will be with me to the very end... Seriously, I hope Sun absolutely destroys her."

LaQueLee: "Sadly, this 2 hour premier didn't feel like a solid Lost showing after the first 20 minutes. I can only trust it'll get better. Hardly any WTF moments. Also, I am not even less likely to take the TSA folks seriously."

Okay, but you two are just thinking about it too much. I bet the rest of the world loved it.

Eugenia: "Lost was great last night, too bad the ratings sucked. It just shows that Lost is now a cult show, not for everyone. That's fine for me actually, I am a geek."

92BuickLeSabre: "While I loved it, my wife (whose only tolerance for SF/Fantasy includes an unnatural love of the LOTR movies, a begrudging acceptance of Iron Man, and a sincere enjoyment of Lost) found it dreadfully dull and mildly irritating. I consider that a bad sign."

A bad sign? What are you people talking about? It was a great episode! Time travel! Jack got rid of his beard! Shirtless Sawyer!

critifur: "How is it that Sawyer is getting in worse physical shape as the show goes on. It is only a matter of months, current island time, and Sawyer is sort of flabby in the mid region. Dude work out a little to stay in shape for your shirtless scenes! Sorry guys but that was yuck."

Lynn Peril: "In which universe are you living that Sawyer is considered 'flabby' and 'yuck'?"

ShivangiImbibery: "'yuck'? Jesus Christ, i don't ever want to have the misfortune of dating you. Your standards are beyond sky high. I bet you've never actually had a relationship with anybody, because if Sawer is "yuck" than 99% of guys must cause you to vomit and violently seizure. You can't be serious. The guy is BUILT. And I'm sorry if I was making assumptions by thinking you're a woman. It's just that no man would ever be that ridiculously shallow."

Troylis: "'no man would ever be that ridiculously shallow.' HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Well played, sir. Well played."

Okay, it has to be said; ShivangiImbibery was definitely playing the part of Angry Young Commenter this week, so filled with Lost Love that sarcasm was... well, lost, at times:

Pope John Peeps II: "The fat guy gets a takeout hamburger?!?! OMG SPOILER ALERT!!!!!! Is that hamburger here in the now? Or is he eating it in the past! Is it a hamburger from the future, which has travelled back in time! SQUEEEEEE!!!"

ShivangiImbibery: "'that fat guy'? Why comment on this story if you know nothing of the show? Go away and make you piss-poor "jokes" somewhere else. Hurley (or 'that fat guy' for people with your mental capabilities) kicks ass! So shut up and fuck off."

But enough about that. Let's just think about what we actually saw on Wednesday night for a second. Theories about the show based upon the new information, anyone?

Garrison Dean: "I wonder if 'Jones' the military guy with the clearly thick accent at the end of the episode is a young Widmore. Perhaps he was there once and that is where his fascination with the island began."

Ed Grabianowski: "Ok, time for Ed's big Lost theory of Season 5. Ready? Charles Widmore was on the Black Rock. Somehow, they found the island, and he discovered the energy source (thus building the frozen donkey wheel). Remember when Ben turned the wheel to move the island, and said whoever did so could never come back? Apparently Widmore moved the wheel way back then, and traveled to the future. He can't go back to the island, but he's been trying to find it and sending people to secure it so he can exploit it ever since."

Purple Dave: "So here are my whacked-out observations/theories:

1. Jacob built the cabin, and then he died. Now he inhabits the cabin and tells The Leader what to do. Christian is also dead, inhabits the cabin, and tells people what to do (not just The Leader, though, as he appeared to Michael, who had never met him before). Locke was told by Alpert that in order to fix things, he would have to die. Separately, he was told that now that the bullet was out, the Island would take care of everything else. Either Locke is going to end up being resurrected by having everyone return to the Island, or Locke is going to be moving into Jacob's cabin.

2. The white-haired lady will turn out to be Faraday's mother.

2b. Desmond going to meet Faraday's mother will somehow be tied to the fact that she recognized him before and _knew_ that he didn't belong there."

Ah, that'll do nicely. And, if nothing else, I think we can all be united in our love of Daniel Faraday, who gave us joy like this:

pickmeohnevermind: "I really loved Daniel staring at the hatch's back door and watching his face as he went through the convoluted logic of making contact with Desmond: ;OK, so, in my recent past, future-Desmond (relative to this moment I am apparently in) traveled into a moment in his own past prior to becoming Hatch-Desmond, and tracked me down at Oxford, so that now, in my present, he and I have met prior to this moment, in which he is only Hatch-Desmond, even though the Hatch-Desmond doesn't know this, which means that although it's not entirely kosher, I should be able to make contact with Hatch-Desmond (as we have met technically prior to this moment at least in my timeline) and in my present give him a message, which should appear as a new memory to Present-Desmond, who's also future-Desmond relative to the guy on the other side of this door. I think.'"

In fact, greenland has the right idea about how to promote actor Jeremy Davis once the series ends:

I have only one thing to say about season 5:

Daniel Faraday for 11th Doctor.

On behalf of the io9 Hive Mind, I can only agree. Sorry, Matt.

Here's just a sampling of the responses that Friday's post got:

edosan: "Dear God, no."

Aleksandr Kalininskiy: "No please please don't do this! Bebop was for me what Star Wars is for folks who were teens in the 70's. So don't ruin my childhood! Damn it all...I will have to watch this movie but..grahhhh"

Mazda Eric wants to make sexy time: "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO this story isn't here! I am not reading this, ((cover ears)) LALALALALALALALALALALA....."

Efflux: "No...No....no,no,no,no,no,no,no. NOOOO!!!!!"

Evil Tortie's Mom: "to chime in with everyone else: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...!!!!!!!!"

br4nd0n: "NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Apparently, the consensus to this news was "No." Although some felt slightly more strongly than that:

johnnyichiban: "ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!"

snowcrash: "ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!"

Yes, that's right; snowcrash feels exactly twice as strongly about this as johnnyichiban.

Thank God for RossFenelon and his reasoned thinking:

Alright *exhale*... Now that my co-workers have talked me down off that ledge, I have had a chance to look at this rationally. I understand why he did this. This is just a self indulgent fanboy fantasy being fulfilled by someone with more clout than taste. I have nothing against his appreciation for Shinichiro Watanabe's masterpiece. But if he would take an honest look at his acting "style" and the demands for this role he would see that it would be better for him to step down and let a relatively unknown actor take this role. These are the reasons; 1) He's too old. He has the height and build for the character and also the martial arts background. But at his age, he would be hard pressed to convey Spike's boyish devil-may-care attitude. Maybe in his Bill & Ted days or even Devil's Advocate. Not now though. This brings me to my next point 2) He's too famous; Spike is a subtle and complex character. Outwardly aloof but deceptively deep and introspective. This is his main appeal. Reeve's fame will undoubtedly over shadow those complexities and this film will most likely devolve into a run of the mill Sci-fi action vehicle for the star. Average movie goers, uninitiated into the Bebop world, will miss out on the depth this character has to offer. the only thing that could give me any hope that this movie will be a quality effort is if they announce that Yoko Kanno is going to do the score along with the Seatbelts and the other artists who made the unforgettable music of Cowboy Bebop. Lastly, if Reeve's ABSOLUTELY had to be in the movie in a leading capacity, the only role I could see him filling is maybe that of Vicious. With his deadpan acting style he might be able to pull that off... maybe... possibly... Oh who am I kidding we're screwed.

Others, meanwhile, didn't see this as the This Is A Disaster that it so clearly is:

OlavRokne: "Keanu is a better actor than anyone gives him credit for. In fact, he may have been one of the only things *right* about the Day the Earth Stood Still (the other was John Cleese)."

DaltonKonowalchuk: "Keanu was one of the two good things in TDTESS, the other was John Gleese. The man was outstanding in Scanner Darkly and Matrix. He has a slate of good projects, give him some credit. And he has the looks, the vibe and the style of Spike, he will make it just right. Plus, they are bringing the original japanese team on board, what means they are serious about doing something good with it. As for Jet, bring Dwayne Johnson!"

Final: "I'll disent. I think he can pull it off. Spike wasn't that outwardly emotional. I'm more concerned about who will play Jet and Ed... Faye they're gonna screw up and get Megan Fox or some other eye candy that can't act."

SinsapaCassandra: "i love keanu reeves! u nerds are too sensitive over nothing.. dont kill my childhood!! blah blah stfu. look at transformers. he was great in constintine and the matrix. just stfu already"

Well, that's us told. From now on, we here at io9 will be stuhfooing on a regular basis. Or something.

Annalee's Thursday edition of irregular sex column Fully Functional (That's a column about sex that runs on an irregular schedule, not a column about irregul - Oh, you understand. Never mind.) certainly seemed to raise the ire of the vampire haters in our audience:

QimatPower: "I just wanted to make this clear: vampires are not interesting. (I felt this way before Twilight, 30 Days of Night, True Blood, Let the Right One In, and everything else.)"

Indigen: "Nice article but I'm left a little mystified, because I never found vampires sexy. I understand the perversity of the whole schtick, and I know there are people out there into bloodletting and domination etcetera, but are there really that many of those people to write a whole article addressing every reader as if they agree? Nobody I know would."

Convair 990A: "Hmm. I have a hard time conceiving of them as anything other than highly-optimized killing machines along the lines of a xenomorph from LV426 or something from Skynet... Modern anti-Victorians can read all they want into Bram Stoker, but I think the common thread remains: These things are not your friends and they're not acting in your interests. You're an ultimately expendable and ambulatory supply of resources for them that just happens to share some aspects of external appearance with them."

Kaiser-Machead: "Sure, they're sexy in pictures, but just imagine the smell of carnage on their breath..unless you're into that sort of thing, then vamp away."

Okay, maybe not that last one. But still; dissent was clearly in the air - Even those who agreed that blood sucking = teh hawtness had nits to pick:

Belabras: "Really, Braum Stoker's Dracula is more about power than seduction - Dracula himself is regarded as repugnant by everyone who encounters him, but he is able to dominate others through his supernatural power. He's not a player, he's a rapist."

theizz: "You have to read Dracula in the context of repressive Victorian society. Dracula was popular b/c he allowed readers of both sexes to think about forbidden sex without feeling ashamed. It's not that the human characters (and readers) are depraved for finding Dracula sexy, it's that hypnotic sex appeal is one of Dracula's powers and the humans are too weak to fight it. The humans are absolved of guilt. The women get fantasize about a sexy lover and the men get to fantasize about "respectable" women clamoring for and enjoying sex."

bonniegrrl: "That's one of the few things the Victorians got right in my book — erotica masked as vampire tales of terror."

Thankfully, some commenters were trying to be constructive and helpful to those tracking the sexy vampire trail:

Spiral: "I wonder if we could pinpoint the exact time vampire myth changed. Earlier myths had vampires as repulsive, ugly, more zombie-like beings that just happened to be alive after their time and needed blood- you see that myth picked up more in things like Nosferatu. At some point they became young, beautiful and sexual. Was it the Victorian era, or is their a source before it where the myth changed?"

geekgrrl: "my rudimentary guess would be, it seems more like a change in locale.. you found the repulsive, board-up-your-windows vampires in Eastern Europe, but they took on a sexier stance in the West. like you said, i'm sure there was a turning point, but travel made it more pronounced."

MinervaAlpaca: "That's Polidori's doing. He based his vampyre, "Lord Ruthven," on his associate Lord Byron—and thus popularizd the idea of the vampire as a dashing Byronic seducer."

AngryEddy: "At what point did they all start shopping at Hot Topic?"

taxbaby: "I think I remember that from Stoker. Didn't Jonathan Harker describe the 'three sisters' as wearing chokers and Invader Zim T-shirts?"

But, in reality, only Killa_Charlie truly got to the heart of the matter:

Why are they so sexy? Cause we're all 14 year old girls in reality.

Factually incorrect, perhaps - in reality, I'm actually male and twenty years older than that, sadly - but on some cosmic allegorical level, so, so true.

To be fair to the touchier readers in our parish, it wasn't the good wishes that upset people; it was the last word of the introduction:

It is time to celebrate the complete revolution of our planet around the sun by assigning to it an arbitrary number based on a Western myth.

Shall we remember the outrage?

HalenTiberius: "Annalee, are you trying to anger anyone who has any shred of religion in them? I'm not Christian, but that statement pissed me off."

Matt House: "No kidding! Hey here's an idea...insult Islam once in a while and see where that gets ya."

Kiamat: "Ok, so we're starting off the New Year by marginalizing Christian readers...or am I being too broad? Is io9 putting out the Unwelcome mat for all people of faith. Is there a list somewhere or do we have to guess? I suppose we could make a game out of it throughout the year like bingo! The easiest way would be to list the groups who are welcome in the byline. Like IO9: The Blog for Progressive, Atheist, Sci-Fi Fans! (well, actually there was that article about the progressive dystopia so I guess it should be The Blog For Non-religious, Politically Involved, Sci-Fi Fans!) Anyway, happy new year everyone."

The arguments even flowed into the subject of whether Christians were more or less tolerant than Muslims:

Latham99: "Matt, the reason he doesn't insult Islam is because they'll kill him. The worst he could expect out of a Christian is a stern talking to and praying for him."

Discodave: "Well, the Inquisition might have had something to say about that, really. And Islam is not quite as intolerant as all that, to put it mildly. My brother in law's a Turkish Muslim and, last time I checked, he wasn't particularly intolerant or aggressive in his faith. Just saying, you know? No offense."

tetracycloide: "the well reasoned and metered response to a political cartoon featuring an image of Mohammad from the mainstream, international Muslim community begs to differ. Christianity has a long document history of reforming itself from within into a more effective and tolerate religious force over centuries of time, Islam as a religion does not."

Discodave: "I could start talking about the conflict in Ireland here, but I'm thinking that might be pushing this discussion in a whole new and even more depressing direction. Let's agree to disagree, eh?"

tetracycloide: "It's not a matter of opinion to agree to disagree on but if you want to agree to continue to delude yourself into thinking whatever you want then be my guest. Suggesting that the various inquisitions of Christianity are by any objective metric more intolerant than Islamic regimes that exist or have existed in the last decade is totally ludicrous."

Ah, the holidays. Always bringing out the best in people. Even when Annalee edited her post (changing "myth" to "belief system"), things didn't get any better:

MikeSmith: "Since "myth" has been changed to the less-effective "belief system," I believe the Christians who read this page are no longer being properly marginalized.

I would like to offer that service to them now.

I believe they need it.

Christians: your story is a myth, and I mean that not just in the anthropological sense of "a story, or a belief system," but in the more common sense of that word, meaning, "something that is not true...something totally made up."

History, science, archeology, even REALITY, all fail completely to support your fun little story of magic and guilt and violence. Virgin births don't happen, though there's no shortage of historical messiah figures from both before and after Jesus of Nazareth who were allegedly born that way; the miracles of Jesus were primarily written about decades and even generations after they allegedly took place; and the original book of Matthew completely failed to mention that Jesus ever came back from the dead—kind of an important detail, you might think.

Anyway, every religion on the planet has their beliefs—their myths, if you will—so wanting special preference for Christianity's unprovable story really just sounds petulant and irrational. You should no more be offended over Christianity's beliefs being referred to as myths than you should over hearing the beliefs of African tribesmen and Navajo medicine men referred to in that way.

Really, grow up, and get the hell over yourselves. If you want to continue believing stories that have no more facts to back them up than anyone else's unprovable stories, then you might want to grow some thicker skin while you're at it. Or at least shut up about it all."

Can't anyone put this in some perspective?

Elizabeth Weinbloom: "Dammit, Annalee. I feel totally marginalized. Is there no safe space for believers in the Sun's rotation around the Earth? Next thing you'll be telling me that people with different political beliefs like the same tv shows as me. Or posting about franchises that are only marginally science fiction."

Moff: "As a small-universer, I object to her description of our corner as 'tiny,' as well."

Grey_Area: "And why is Annalee restricting her New Year's greetings only to humans? What a bigot!!"

Moff: "I don't think there's anything 'big' about it at all (except how much offendedness I feel!)! More like a smallgot."

meirelle wants an F-15: "I'm sure all the Furries and Otherkin feel left out. :("

Grey_Area: "And all the robots. Those poor, lonely robots."

Elizabeth Weinbloom: "Sorry, I don't believe in robots."

Grey_Area: "Puny meatbag, your belief is not required, only your utter submission to your emotionally unbalanced cybernetic masters. Happy New Year!"

The final word on the subject - and on New Year in general, however, belongs to gods-n-clods:

Everybody can jibber-jabber all they want— what I know is that Western Civ's New Year sucks. Everything's closed today. Chinese New Year— now that is a party. Bring the dragons n' firecrackers n' buffets n' karaoke, and you can keep this "Quiet Thursday '09" BS.

Get rid of New Year, and then no-one will get offended. Sounds right to me.

#1: Caption this Photo to Win A Cyborg-Sized Load Of Terminator Gear
Not that we think that you're greedy or anything, but the two most commented upon posts this year were both contests. This one, from March, got 500 comments in response to what amounted to our bribing you to do so with all manner of goodies from Fox's Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Damn you, greed!

#2: Win a Copy of Appleseed: Ex Machina on DVD
Who wants a copy of Appleseed: Ex Machina? Apparently, 353 of you did back in April, and left comments to that effect.

#3: Imagine an America Where Socialism is No Longer a Dirty Word
Better yet, imagine a world where a politically-charged post written the day before a Presidential Election gets 344 comments, many of which are somewhat upset that we'd put up a politically-charged post the day before a Presidential Election. If your imagination is somewhat lacking, you could simply check out this post and see the carnage for yourself.

#4: What Chicks Don't Like About Science Fiction
Apparently, what chicks don't like about science fiction is continually being told that they don't like science fiction, according to Annalee. 274 of you let her know that she was damn right, back in May.

#5: Now X-Women Can Be Bimbos Too
Marvel Comics tried to prove that sex sells back in July, and I turned into the Boob Grinch by complaining about it. Luckily, 266 of you were ready to point out that, really, there's nothing that wrong with Rogue's ass - although Storm playing with her hair was a bimbo too far for many of you.

#6: The Coming War Between Religion And Super-Science
Charlie Jane warned us all in April about the possibility of a showdown between science and nature in the 21st Century, and then went ahead to wonder about what stories could come out of such a battle. 259 comments later, we'd discovered that God might've been an astronaut after all.

#7: Battlestar Galactica Goes Planet of the Apes
If you needed any proof that the last episode of the first half of the final season of Battlestar Galactica was controversial, take a look at the 254 comments left after Annalee recapped it, and called it "truly worthy of the promise BSG offered when I first watched the miniseries and thought, 'Holy shit this show is too awesome for TV.'"

#8: No We Can't
What kind of world are we living in when an installment of io9 Ourobouros can get 251 comments itself? Oh, that's right; a world where asking wondering whether or not politics had any place in science fiction is the kind of thing that makes people a little bit agitated. On the plus side, I doubt we're going to write about the inauguration that much.

#9: The Twenty Science Fiction Novels that Will Change Your Life
Way back in February, Annalee listed the twenty SF books that would "could change the way you see the world, and maybe even change your life." 247 of you wanted to let her know that you appreciated the choices, but wondered where the novelization of The Cat From Outer Space was.

#10: Avatar Casting Makes Fans See... White
Aaaaaand finally - and fittingly from this very month - 241 people were suitably appalled at the casting decisions made by Paramount Pictures for M. Night Shyamalan's big-screen version of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Or, at least, appalled enough to leave comments about it.

Firstly, you people need to get your minds out of the gutter. The holidays are a time for children, people:

resonanteye: "this chart is so outdated. everyone knows cock belongs right there, next to boobs. it's the 21st century, people. and I want my scientifically categorized cock!"

Daveina: "I think sex might be a little high. Although it *is* difficult to obtain, especially in its enriched form. That said, if sex is on there, but the blowjob is not? I'm sorry, sex is cool but blowjobs are *awesome*."

Klebert L. Hall: "Come on, guys - only former Presidents think that blowjobs aren't sex."

antmansbigxmas: "I was worried that "boobs" would be omitted, but science doesn't fail."

That said, even when your minds were on more "clean" matters, there was still dissent:

AlucardNoir: "WTF? sniper before assasin? asasin before vampire? i'll even let the ninja pass, nut Bacon before the bat and mr.t? wtf?"

ACyclicUniverse: "Well, remember, the PToA arranges Awesoments in increasing mass and complexity, so it's the other way around."

AlucardNoir: "also, hidrogen is the basic element and source off all other via stelar fusion and wow, for this one it's freaking BACON!!! am i the only one that find's this wrong?"

ACylcicUniverse: "Well, let's be honest, would Chuck Norris's beard really be so full and butch without copious amounts of Bacon grease? And how would any of the fine men and women whose discoveries/inventions are listed here have the energy and focus to reach for the glistening, dripping stars?"

Evil Tortie's Mom: "Bacon is the foundation of life."

Gann: "Also - Water, the source of all life on earth, is now two slices of bacon wrapped around a piece of cheese. That sounds about right."

There were, of course, many absences from the list (apart from blowjobs) that got people hot under their festive collars:

DavidPFarrell: "A bit of a cop-out to have "D" for Dinosaur as Velociraptors are worthy of having their own entry (VR)."

Mathmos: "No pizza?"

Auragon: "No Samuel mothaf*cking Jackson? man, this is crap."

wolfman-al: "What about Werewolfes?"

geekgrrl: "what, no vikings?"

bookwench: "Wolves representing the canid family, but no liger? Trillobytes, but no ammonites? No Cthulhu? And WHY are ninjas before pirates, pray tell?"

The best suggestion to remedy all these errors came from falconrugger06:

I think io9 should create it's own Periodic Table of Awesomeness...with fan/commenter votes included (as it will INCREASE the AWESOMENESS EXPONENTIALLY)...

Now, that sounds like an idea for next year... But if we did do it, I have to warn you; Samuel Jackson's appearance in The Spirit pretty much rules him out of consideration already.

When Charlie Jane quoted Carl Zimmer suggesting that science fiction movies "are not really about science" and only use "fragments of science," you all found yourselves rather engaged - and not just because of the picture of Jeri Ryan than somewhat inexplicably accompanied the post:

goldfarb: "'Science fiction movies are not really about science.' I'm sure I've said that a dozen times... as painful as it is to even think about - SF really does need a new name."

Grand_Marquis: "I don't think you need 'hard science' to call something sci fi, but SOME kind of reasoned or logical though MUST be involved somewhere. Good lord... It's less of a travesty that there isn't a comprehensive understanding of realistic space travel, than it is that modern sci fi just pulls overused tropes out of its ass left and right like it's some kind of morbidly obese hermit welded to its couch and complaining that it needs more potato chips."

Mister_Adequate: "Anyone who thinks science fiction is about science is shockingly misguided. Science - whether realistic or fantastic - is simply a vehicle used to examine existing issues."

corpore-metal: "Sure, science fiction isn't really about science but anyone who claims that science doesn't matter in science fiction doesn't understand why science fiction and fantasy are different shelves. Really if science didn't matter at all, it would all be fantasy."

twDarkflame: "As long as sci-fi is constant to its own rules and laws, and those laws are clearly ones regular and of a scientific nature, it is still sci-fi. The laws of the universe the sci-fi takes place in *does not need to match our own*. But that dosnt mean they shouldnt be self-consistant, and it dosnt mean it has to be fantasy."

But it wasn't all discussions about what sciene fiction should be; there was also a history lesson, as well:

Belabras: "It's true really. In order to pose interesting questions of story, bad or non-existant science is used to create the situation. SciFi has been moving away from hard science basically since it's inception."

Moff: "Actually, isn't the inception point generally considered, uh, Frankenstein?"

Belabras: "Well, probably The Other World: The Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon (1657) by Bergerac, but fair enough. What I meant, was that SciFi in the 20th century started out mostly hard science and became more and more story focused. So, really, my original statement is totally false."

The last word, of course, falls to Moff, who came up with the ultimate proof of Zimmer's words:

Substantiation: What always follows the rules of science perfectly and is totally boring? Real life.