226

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Alan Partridge was essentially a precursor to The Office, 'cause he has the self-importance and lack of self-awareness that plagues all the characters that make Ricky Gervais so popular. I never understood how The Office was soo much more successful, you'd think there'd be a bigger overlap in the fanbase, but apparently not.

227

(45 replies, posted in Off Topic)

228

(33 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Oh, Stargate! I know it's been forgotten and isn't highly regarded, but when I was 12 I thought it was such a cool and exciting idea. I think it was fairly foundational in getting me into sci-fi, as well. Plus, you know, Kurt Russell.

229

(33 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Men in Black and Jumanji got a lot of rewatches when I was 12ish.

230

(538 replies, posted in Creations)

Just heard this. That's awesome Phi, perfect cadence!

231

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

...that looks like a parody poster.

232

(18 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Somewhere between Snatch and Layer Cake, Dr. Sam Beckett leaped from Guy Ritchie into Matthew Vaughn.

233

(7 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Dayamn! Y'all are awesome.

235

(164 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Over the past season, having to regularly explain why I keep watching a show that I have lots of legitimate complaints about, I've rationalized Sons of Anarchy many, many times. Currently where I stand with it is:

Sons of Anarchy is like a restaurant where the food is surprisingly good considering how cheap it is, but the wait-staff have a tendency to spill loads of it on the floor before it even reaches your table.

236

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

237

(11 replies, posted in Episodes)

238

(262 replies, posted in Episodes)

On this day in 1976, Network was released.
When Mike's back on the recording couch, how about a couple of Sidney Lumet movies?
12 Angry Men, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Network...

239

(248 replies, posted in Off Topic)

240

(54 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Phi, I know exactly what you mean. Papers aren't written to be readable, they're written to get published. And the peer review thing... boy howdy, I am not looking forward to getting to that stage and "playing the game".

I really wish we didn't have to be "all business, no pleasure" though. A lot of 19th/early-20th century papers are so convivial and expressive in their language, but they still got science done.

(I know I have to play by the rules for my thesis and getting these papers published, but I also think I'm just gonna end up writing less stuffy versions so my friends can read them.)

Thanks for the offer (I think that's an offer, right?)! I'll try and keep the dryness to a minimum and when I've got a good draft done, I'll let y'all know.

241

(54 replies, posted in Off Topic)

So, recently I've been writing two (ish) papers, and a PhD proposal outlining my work. And it's become pretty clear that I have tunnel vision and things that are obvious to me are not obvious to people who aren't part of a phylogenetics (evolutionary trees) lab.

I figure since y'all obviously have an understanding of good narrative structure (podcast... duh), and you're not in my usual circle of friends (who are mostly biologists), somebody here would be interested in occasionally reading through my work?
Not the usual typos-and-grammar thing, don't worry about that. I'd like a non-biologist to read though and tell me "i have no idea what this concept is and you didn't bother to explain it" or "i don't understand the point of what you're doing here" or "this idea doesn't follow, or contradicts, what came before" etc. I wanna make sure that the papers I write have a logical flow to them, and that there is a clarity to my ideas.

Would anybody be interested in that? My work uses evolutionary trees to make predictions about species/communities, and then we compare them to the real world. No molecular stuff, there's a minimum of number-stuff or tedious methodological detail, so don't worry about that. It's mainly trying to tell a story using ideas.

242

(169 replies, posted in Episodes)

243

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

So, I'm kinda curious about how people felt about the argument/discussion that Riggan has with the theatre critic in the bar.

Do you think we were we "supposed" to pick a "side" of that argument? Because I agreed with both of them.

244

(8 replies, posted in Episodes)

Martin "hey it's that guy!" Balsam played the jury foreman in 12 Angry Men smile

245

(248 replies, posted in Off Topic)

So, he has flashcards for "YES" and "NO".
Next time one of you visits, take a flashcard that says "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN THERE'S GONNA BE A GHOSTBUSTERS REBOOT?" and ask him the appropriate question. If he's started smiling, I'm sure his sense of humour will start coming back on-line soon, too smile

246

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

247

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I really enjoyed it, and I'm quite keen to go watch it again at the end of the week.
I think it's gonna be a real Marmite film, but I'd recommend it on the grounds that 1) it has its own unique flavour, and 2) you'll still be thinking about it well after you've seen it.

I just really hope the writers don't come right out and explain what they were going for, because as it is right now, it's open to a lot of delicious layers of interpretation.

249

(30 replies, posted in Episodes)

I thought Lake Mungo was very, very good.