226

(44 replies, posted in Episodes)

http://media2.giphy.com/media/6iWLxCrCWJ572/giphy.gif

227

(9 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Because Fox paid for the rights to air the show.

Studios and networks are separate businesses, even if they have the same parent companies.  A studio division usually sells its shows to its sister network, but doesn't have to.

Another example: ABC Studios produces Criminal Minds, but it airs on CBS.

228

(38 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade

A brotherhood of holy warriors kept this sacred icon safe for a thousand years.  Now watch how one reckless archaeologist ruins everything.

229

(29 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/37651890.jpg

230

(38 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Fight Club

SPOILER Show
This is what happens when your imaginary friend decides to get real.

(spoilered just in case there's that one person who hasn't seen it yet)

231

(38 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Elysium

We could give everyone free healthcare by changing one line of computer code. So why don't we?

232

(38 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Groundhog Day

Maybe your mind won't be blown when you see what happens at 6 AM, but keep watching until 6 AM.

233

(38 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The Silence of the Lambs

Watch this young FBI agent learn the hard way that people don't always fill out those change-of-address cards.

234

(38 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Se7en

This man thought he wanted to know what was in the box.  He was so very wrong.

235

(14 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://www.pinkfive.com/images/post/bigbang.jpg

236

(29 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Well, I guess this thread counts as a spoiler for me personally, so...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-im_CKn9PPI8/T0dtSJ0lUFI/AAAAAAAAAzY/0vIyQ9SYpt4/s1600/abe-simpson-gif.gif

237

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Zarban wrote:

And to explain the distribution of marsupials, you have to admit that North America and Australia were once connected, which means you have to accept continental drift. Pretty soon, you're agreeing to almost all of evolution and almost all of geology.

That's another huge aspect to this issue - evolution isn't just some stand-alone idea separate from the rest of science.  It's the catch-all name for a process that can be observed in everything from astronomy to geology.

Again, it's the perception among the uneducated that "evolution" means just "the theory that man came from monkeys" which makes it seem like a single claim that can be easily dismissed.

I went to a lecture by Eugenie Scott years ago, and the quote that's stuck with me ever since was "If evolution isn't true, then nothing is true."

In other words, if you want to claim "evolution isn't real", you might as well also say "Emails get sent via angels whispering to each other".  You can't remove "evolution" from "science" without the entire thing collapsing.

238

(431 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Phi wrote:

Also because I use YouTube Feather Beta. Never looked back.

Seconded.

http://media3.giphy.com/media/WKdPOVCG5LPaM/giphy.gif

On the other hand, can't back you up on the pizza issue.  Pineapple/bacon pizza is the strongest evidence we have that the universe was created by a benevolent god.

239

(15 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Well - still not enough to get me to watch The Master a second time.

But I think today is a good day to rewatch State and Main.  And Boogie Nights.  And perhaps even try MI:3.

240

(17 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I thank the gods that we only barely had an Internet in the era when they announced Michael Keaton was going to play Batman. 

I wasn't a Batman fan back then either, but even MY first thought was "MICHAEL KEATON?  That's the weirdest casting choice ever."  And it still is, in my opinion.    Casting Affleck at least makes sense.

The modern equivalent of casting Keaton - who had been the "zany guy" in a couple of successful comedies but was nowhere near a "movie star" - would be somebody like... I dunno... Jay Baruchel or one of the guys from Big Bang Theory.

But apparently Keaton did okay.   I still maintain it doesn't matter who's in the suit, as long as there aren't nipples on it.

241

(17 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I would have preferred Helen Mirren.  For either role.

242

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

Invid wrote:

Maybe someone had a plan to have a die-off on Earth to get the population down, and it's not working. "If we can get the population down to one billion, we can do something with the place. Deny them health care! Wait... you mean they're still reproducing, but now are just suffering a lot? Well, that's egg on our face!"

And that would have been a more interesting way to go. If Elysium's motivation was "We can't fix all of Earth's problems, and it'll just get worse if they all live longer", now we've got an interesting dilemma worth examining.

243

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

Even within the world that Elysium creates, it makes perfect sense for the Elysians (?) not to allow Earth's population to come LIVE on Elysium, because clearly Elysium can only support a fraction of that number. So it would be understandable for the Elysians to keep their borders closed to immigration, if we want to deal with a real-world issue in a sci-fi context.

But - the movie focuses specifically on the magic health machines that apparently do not exist on Earth at all, but are stockpiled in huge surplus on Elysium.   

Not only would it cost the Elysians nothing to let Earth have access to that technology, it doesn't even make sense for them to deny it.  Elysium's troubles in the movie are the direct result of the Elysians pointlessly hoarding something free and unlimited.   That's not just being dicks for no reason, that's the dumbest foreign policy in the history of everything.

244

(47 replies, posted in Episodes)

That was Roddenberry's way of trying to tell us who really shot JFK.

245

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

http://gifs.gifbin.com/1237363745_old_people_fighting.gif

246

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

Jimmy B wrote:

so many people use 'depression' as a catch-all term for having off days, those of us actually suffering from it can often get ignored.

Which is what I've been getting at.  See also the too-casual use of "bi-polar" which some people misuse to mean "moody".  Having been close to several people with actual bi-polar disorder, I know from experience that mood swings are not the same as being bi-polar, and vice versa.

247

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

http://www.pinkfive.com/images/post/orang.png

248

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

redxavier wrote:

Trey's fond of saying how the reboot is more akin to the original series, and I could not disagree more. This is emphatically not our fathers' Trek.

Well, I AM one of those fathers, so I still say it is.   Trek09 was the first incarnation since the original that was fun to watch.  Speaking for myself, obviously.   I never got into any of the other TV versions, where people in onesies talked about their feewings.  Not my thing,  but even so I can still recognize those as Trek because there was a schmeer of science nerdery and an attempt to do actual scifi stories.

However ST:ID- while still delivering lots of bangbang - completely abandoned any pretense of logic or sense.  It's not just the dumbest Trek ever, it's a dumb movie in general.

249

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

Again, my fellow doctors - being sad is not depression.  People can be sad and still function.    It's the difference between your leg hurting and your leg being broken.

If Bullock's character can get herself together enough to do whatever her job is, she can still be sad on her time off without being clinically "depressed".   So she's sad a lot.  Millions of us are, but we can still do our laundry and fly shuttles and stuff.   The notion that people can't have issues and be astronauts is pretty much negated by Diaper Lady.

So let's stop being lazy and using "depression" as a catch-all here, especially because semantically we sometimes do use "depressed" to also mean "kinda sad at the moment" in addition to the clinical definition.

Instead, let's go all Mamet-like and talk in specifics, rather than hypothetical medical diagnoses.   What is her specific problem?    We'll skip all the speculation and just focus on what the movie shows us and what it tells us.

What she hasn't done specifically is let go of the death of her daughter and move on with her emotional life.   She clearly still can be a doctor and an astronaut well enough in her public life, because she is one.   But this isn't a movie about her overcoming hardship to become an astronaut.

How this problem specifically affects her is:  She's not a lot of fun.  She's joyless.  She's functional, but that's all.    As specifically shown by watching her grimly poke at her little experiment while her fellow astronauts zip around pointing out that they're in space and it's freaking amazing, just look at the goddam Earth for fuck's sake!   

Then later, she specifically tells us that when she's not doing her job, she has nothing.  No hobbies, not even a musical preference.  She just drives.  Pretty easy symbolism there:  Her life is going nowhere.

So later in her darkest hour she decides to just wait to die because she lost her daughter so what the fuck, right?   

Then - how she changes specifically by the end of the movie is - instead of surrendering, she says goodbye to her daughter (literally), and decides to try to live after all.  Not just in terms of survival, but to embrace life again.  She's not just ready to take the ride to the surface, she's ready to appreciate the crazy awesomeness of that experience. Even if it kills her.   It's the first time in the entire movie that she's genuinely happy - just before she's probably about to die a fiery spectacular death.

That's the character arc, and although there are a few clunky moments along the way it's perfectly solid.  No need to go inventing a phantom medical history to argue against.

250

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

aw yeah, that gets a
dorkman