Good grief. If I were to do that kind of thing, it would involve clicking and typing, and possibly more clicking.

One more reason why they call you 'The Amazing'.

Should the name of this corrections thread be 'corrected'?

I believe the technical term for what happens at the end of this week's finale is WHAM!

We may have the technology to shoot natively in 3D, but researchers are still working on the surprisingly complex problem of shining a light into two lenses at the same time to create JJ flares with convincing depth.

Maybe by the next generation, we'll have something.

Ooh, then

And considering that

Saw the 3D version today with my wife. I thought it was a worthy successor to the previous one, although she thinks the '09 film still has the edge. We both gave it 8 out of 10, and will both probably go back and see it again (probably in IMAX this time, why not?). The 3D version was fine, not annoying, but I can only imagine that the conversion team have a special place in Hell for directors who like lens flares.

We saw it at a lunchtime screening in our local cinema, so there were perhaps fewer than 20 people in the audience. (Whereas, if we'd gone into London to see it, we'd have been sitting at the edge of the cinema,  because all the big screens there are mostly sold out already.)

Oh, and as far as the ending goes, I'm fine with it. They set it up in the movie to the extent that I could see it coming, and it could be regarded as

Well, that'll never work. Everybody knows that drinkers buy beer based on flavour and value for money, and aren't interested in bouncy ladies at all.

I still think it's a weird sales pitch: spaceships, 'splosions and serious actors, together at last!

Arguably, the BBC did the same thing with the relaunch of 'Doctor Who' when they cast Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor, and had Russell T Davies as head writer. In Hollywood terms, that was like casting Kevin Spacey and having Aaron Sorkin in charge. But although that helped to sell the idea that the show was being taken seriously as a drama to snooty reviewers and jaded forty-somethings, I'll wager it meant nothing at all to the vast majority of the target audience.

Likewise, I suspect that this movie's ideal demographic isn't that interested in serious actors seriously acting up the joint, even though the movie will probably be better for it.

Found yesterday on the Facebooks:

Blimey. Does he have to loop every mention of 'Down in Front' or 'DiF' to something else as well?

And does he have to do a global search-and-replace across the forums, once they're migrated to their new home?  And after that, will this post just look weird?

Basically, I suppose I'm asking just how Orwellian the re-writing of DiF history has to be?

Double-plus ungood, I reckon.

The following is a ridiculous suggestion, which I therefore feel compelled to make: given that you guys sometimes have rows about films, how about "The Row Row". Sounds like Scooby Doo saying "The Now Show" (which is already a thing, but that's not important right now).

More/less ridiculous suggestions:

Flicksonomy
Hollywood Hubbub
Cutting Remarks
Four on the Floor
The Cutting Room
Outside Insight

Now that I've asked a question that was blatantly contra-indicated by a previous answer, I feel justified in saying "tut, tut."

Pity I couldn't have said it fast enough to enable a retraction, mind you.