I disagree with not bothering to keep historical records. After all, those who don't learn from history are condemned to … oh, who am I kidding? Carry on with whatever you had planned originally in the record keeping (or not record keeping) department.

On the subject of useful videos for targeted demographics …

It was different for us in Australia, back then Predator got an 'M' rating, which was 'For Mature Audiences' which was advisory (and of what, no-one's quite sure.)

I think so. The other films in the sci-fi series that they did which I got to see were Alien, Aliens, Total Recall, and Robocop.

My local cinema was doing a revival of classic sci-fi movies, so I got to see Predator on the big screen for the first time since 1987 (they used to let pre-teens into anything back then in Australia.)

Predator 2?

Well, I don't think there's any harm at the planning stage in weighing up two alternatives, one being the scripted path they had in mind had Carrie Fisher still been able to do Part IX and the other where they write her out.

Maybe it's an unfortunate side-effect of typecasting and definitely unfair but I couldn't shake thinking of Silence as Kylo Ren and Spider-Man go looking for Liam Neeson from Taken.

What the hell, if Crash can not only get nominated but win (back when there were only 5 films allowed for Best Picture at that …)

Apropos of not much …

This is where I remind everyone just tuning in from home that the first nation to sell Iran nuclear technology was the United States of America - in the 1960s. You know, after the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a dictator (yet again.)

I guess there's potentially an unavoidable trade-off involved. There's the ideal arc for the character as planned had Carrie Fisher been able to do Part IX. Preserving the character as intended as intact and as minimally altered as possible from the original plans. Now this would best be served by recasting over CGI…

Glad you liked it. I haven't seen any of the source material (it's on my long list of things to do, I swear) but I thought this was cute and had the feeling it would at least try its best to be faithful to it as best as it could and I'm glad to hear it mostly hits those marks.

It's been a while since I've seen this film (like a few decades probably) but I still remember the insane tea house shootout at the start and given I have worked in many a hospital, those sieges and running gun battles inside the sort of place much like I work in makes me wonder if I should feel guilty about liking…

I heard the stuntman for that scene broke his leg attempting it first. Any truth in that or am I mixing that up with what is undoubtedly a multitude of other injuries accumulated on the set of Jackie Chan films. Fantastic film by the way.

… and of course, as we here all know, it can be two things.

Well, given that large Hollywood productions are broken up into multiple sections with second unit directors, stunt teams with their own co-ordinators and so on often going and doing things separately and quite often at the same time, I'd put it that he was probably more qualified than at least most of the Marvel film…

I think there's more to Joss Whedon than that (can't comment on the others as I don't know) because he did a lot of television directing and ran a lot of shows on top of that.

Oh good, then you get the concept that being found guilty is not always the same thing as whether or not you actually did it or not, nor does it really in and of itself differentiate between everything from erroneously accused due to mistaken identity to totally did it but got off due to a technicality.

I'm just more perplexed than anything. He could have just said "I don't know." or "I'd like to think so." (regardless of whether he believed it or not.)