Are you talking the Stallone movie, or the comic? I haven't read it since the 80's, but the old comic was hilarious and awesome.

Ok, I'm sorry. I go on too much.

Aw, thanks. So nice to have my hate reflected back as niceness.

Black holes makes sense according to a lot of indirect evidence and what we know of stars' life cycles. There's still no direct evidence, but they sure seem to make sense (unless you believe they can be used to stop a supernova or send vengeful Romulans back in time). There is no direct evidence of dark matter, and I…

I knew I was risking my credibility by citing Google and Wikipedia, but it's still better than the bunch of us coming up with stuff off the tops of our heads.

Are you guys basing your beliefs on anything? I just googled it, and according to Wikipedia, tachyons are hypothetical, not even theoretical. "Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their…

United in hatred :-)

That imitation of Weaver's voice is just too mean.

Agreed. Plus, the Flash's origin could be a part of the story. They did a fantastic thing with The Flash on Justice League Unlimited. Play into the idea that he's just a silly kid compared to all these others (except Aquaman), then have him prove himself. The audience would really connect to that.

Probably not, but that would be an awesome reveal. He takes off the mask, and it's Liam Neeson instead of Tom Hardy. People would loose their sh*t.

But they filmed something in India that seems an awful lot like the Lazarus pit!

I was going to correct myself, but I don't think I'm wrong. If something's theoretical, does that mean it's not also fictional? Especially if it's often used in fictional ways?

They dropped so many cool threads, had so many engaging characters, but in the end it was all a con. They never had a plan to pull it all together. How easy would it be to have a cool looking sci if mystery if you never had to make it make any sense at the end?

No. Star Trek did not depict neutrinos going faster than light. Tachyons yes- because they're fictional.

Enough said- I don't have to look THEM up ;-)

It looks like a boiled bat wearing lungs like Mickey Mouse ears. You want to see a franchise of movies based on that crap? And the designer keeps doing the same monster in every movie he does. I hope he's not working on this.

"The makers of the new Star Trek movies are feeling so pumped about their series, they're already talking about a third installment "

That is mighty freakin' cool. I'm sure the robots will look good- that's easy. What we need now is some great monster designs, and not some ugly Cloverfield crap.

Yeah, but then they start stepping on your buildings, and you wish you had a giant robot to push them off.

I've read about Lilith before. Wasn't her crime that she wanted to be on top (during sex)? Then she flew away and made reptile babies that were the ancestors of the lamiae, who are sort of prototypical vampires or succubi? Something like that. Fun stuff.