I kind of thought that was Kevin Costner at first.

Lake Trout. It's all Lake Trout in Baltimore...

Can't find video of it offhand, but the time travel scene from Time After Time from 1979 is awesome.

Not pure apostrophe though, since there is clear indication (in my mind anyway) that Khan actually did hear Kirk...or at least if he didn't, the Khan reaction shot after Kirk screams where it practically looks like he orgasms becomes exponentially more creepy. ;-)

I have cursed at non-present people, sure. Even right after having gotten off the phone with them. However, (maybe this is just the way my mind works) in such situations I do not continue to yell into the microphone on the relevant device. ;-)

Khan may or may not be listening (and I agree with Sean Bon that Khan was still listening), but doesn't the fact Kirk was clearly yelling into the communicator suggest Kirk at least thinks Khan is listening? Why yell into the communicator to address anyone you know to be "absent"?

Possibly, possibly not. Depends on how the policy was written, how force majeure was applied, what the available coverage and policy limits would be, and any number of things. I doubt insurance would come anywhere near making the fortune whole again, it might cover some of the loss.

"Bruce Wayne will probably get his fortune back at some point, given that Bane's money-losing trades were obviously fraud."

Old Spock not telling them everything they did for 20-40 years may or may not be a justifiable decision, comes down to the philosophical approach he takes to letting them develop independently.

Well, I think the distinction here is that even though the war was over slavery, it was not fought to free the slaves. That was not the objective of the Unionists at the beginning, and it came about more or less as an incidental to fighting the war against slave states...which depended on slave labor to operate. …

That is extremely unlikely because of some timing issues. This is extensively analyzed here:

Some types of movies you can more or less trust the consensus of review. However, I do not think this is one of them.

If he was only drinking after filming days, there's clearly not a physical dependence and it's classic self-medication. This is more commonly viewed as abuse rather than full-blown alcoholism, particularly if the self-medicator is not drinking that heavily. (I suppose then we get to the issue of whether a bottle of…

I was mostly being facetious. ;-)

Depends on what the word "have" means there. And medically, there is a real and profound distinction between psychological dependence and and physical dependence.

Interesting, though I'm not sure a bottle of wine even every day as a form of self-medication (as it seems to be in this scenario) isn't alcoholism so much as alcohol abuse. But the line can be fuzzy.

Too soon?

Ah, I gotcha. It's just I'm a big Trek fan and I had never really heard that Nimoy had been noticeably bad on that score. Doohan, yeah. But I've never read any of Shatner's or Nimoy's books. ;-)

So if I get a history of the "sixties" it will mention that Leonard Nimoy was drunk all the time?

A midair collision in NYC in 1960 that killed 132 people and left one 12-year-old survivor? How did Mad Men miss structuring an episode around this?