|
Post by Anders on Sept 28, 2008 10:14:06 GMT -8
The other one is much better, since this one is directly contradicted by the comic - he doesn't think it's a-ok.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 28, 2008 6:47:01 GMT -8
Well, we know what it's supposed to say.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 27, 2008 23:55:56 GMT -8
That poster would have more impact if it read "Marital Infidelity".
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 27, 2008 11:37:41 GMT -8
I enjoyed ASS (laugh it up) though I think the first few issues had much more wow-factor. I'll re-read the whole thing sometime but I don't feel any hurry to do it: it was a good story, certainly one of the better Superman stories I've read (though I'm no afficiando), but if there were hidden levels they are too far down for me to bother digging them up.
I hadn't even considered that Lex and Leo could be the same person, but I remember finding it a bit strange that a character I had never heard of before got so much space in a story that seemed to lean heavily on established characters, which makes me lean more towards it being true.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 26, 2008 15:21:55 GMT -8
My problem isn't that they're handwaving the science but that they're being stupid about it, going against well established theory (not to mention very basic logic). To me that's not "fringe"; it's just laziness and/or inexcusable ignorance. If you're going to write a show based on the concept of fringe science then you should at least be able to bluff your way past someone who passed high school biology or physics, but they're not even trying to rise to that level.
Still, if the show had been funny and cool or had engaging characters or if the stupid make-up science had been really out there instead of rehashed sci-fi concepts made up 50+ years ago or if the big arc had seemed really cool I would stay. If I hear that they get better I may come back, but when two out of three episodes annoy me more than they entertain me I'm not hanging around to find out for myself. I've got Burn Notice to catch up on, and Supernatural is supposed to be good, and I probably should get going on House, Galactica and all the other shows I haven't bothered to get into yet.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 26, 2008 0:58:47 GMT -8
The third episode of Fringe didn't improve my impression of it. Instead of using actual fringe science (perpetual motion, orgone accumulators etc) they're mostly just doing bad sci-fi. Add that the only interesting character is John Noble's, and what little chemistry exists is between him and the guy playing his son and that is at best moderately spark-worthy and the horrible deus ex machina-like way they're handling the knowledge Noble's character has and this ends up in the Bleh-Files. I'm not going to bother with it again unless I get indications that it's improved considerably.
Sons of Anarchy shows real promise, on the other hand.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 26, 2008 0:51:02 GMT -8
Robert Rankin could pull it off. His more surreal books read a bit like Adams based in conspiracy theories instead of science fiction.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 25, 2008 10:01:53 GMT -8
My quick look made me think nearly all of it is in German and the interface is horribly annoying with a bunch of ads (also in German), but maybe I got off on the wrong foot with it.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 25, 2008 6:06:59 GMT -8
Yeah, I'm not going to follow those links from here, but I appreciate the hilarious copy.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 24, 2008 21:43:18 GMT -8
Jesse, you're doing that thing again where you assume that everyone - particularly editors and writers - have the same opinions on how the characters ultimately work as you. Specifically, this:
is pure bullshit, because you and me both know that all it takes is a single writer with enough of a boner for writing the X-Men this way to make it happen. The way the characters act in your head has no bearing on how someone will write them.
Whew! It felt to get that off my chest.
And now back to your regularly scheduled nerdrage...
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 24, 2008 12:08:05 GMT -8
The problem isn't that the president is an important character, but that Sorkin (and those who followed him) didn't want to explore the sides of the issues they didn't agree with more than superficially. That wouldn't have changed if the president wasn't there as much.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 24, 2008 5:59:19 GMT -8
I'd think that a little annoyance would be a better alternative than current reality, but maybe we have different tolerances there. Absolutely, but when it comes to dealing with the real-world end of winning back voters and changing things for the better, it does liberals no goddamn good to wall themselves up into echo-chamber fantasy-lands, where the like-minded spend all their time circle-jerking each other's opinions, because ... well, because then, we might as well be neo-cons. Of course, but that doesn't mean that occasionally lending a thought to what the world could be like isn't constructive. To work towards a better world you need a clear view of what that better world is, not only of what it isn't. Problem being, in this case, that it's (almost) literally true. Well, I'm pretty picky about language, so "almost" doesn't cut it.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 23, 2008 21:33:41 GMT -8
I've never wanted the West Wing to be a documentary more than now. ... Actually, I hate to say it, but this actually really illustrates why, in spite of my own liberal politics, I often found The West Wing to be insufferably annoying, because it really was always Democratic Party fan fiction, and if there's one thing I can't fucking stand about far too many of my fellow left-wingers in the media, it's how goddamn preachy they are in their arguments, a tendency which is only made worse when they have free reign to insert their speeches into the mouths of their Mary Sues, with only their strawmen opponents to challenge them. I'd think that a little annoyance would be a better alternative than current reality, but maybe we have different tolerances there. I didn't mind the preachiness which I think rarely went overboard, but the strawmen did piss me off. There were many times when their opponents just shut up instead of give an obvious retort. For a while now, you've been overusing and misusing this word and it's getting a little annoying. Just a friendly nudge from a fellow verbal ticcer.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 22, 2008 21:33:59 GMT -8
He probably would have said it wasn't a war but a police action or something; Israel going after Hizbollah rather than Lebanon.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Sept 22, 2008 12:37:52 GMT -8
Tony Blair was on the Daily Show last week, and they devoted more of the program than usual to the interview (about two thirds of the time instead of half). I was once again impressed by Jon Stewart's incredible skill as a host for these segments: he's respectful of his guests while still being able to ask hard questions and he always appears to know what he's talking about, and while doing all this he manages to be funny.
Blair came off pretty good, I think. It's obvious that he's a smart guy and though I don't agree with his positions he can at least argue for them without falling back on canned sound bites.
|
|