Really? You're arguing this point? In a country where people regularly demand antibiotics when they get the flu?

If they're travelling faster than light, doesn't that mean that they have to be travelling backward in time, as well?

There you go with all your "logic," "reason" and "facts" again. Don't you know that absence of evidence is evidence of the conspiracy to cover up the truth?

Hey, I recognized that that image was "a spectacular shot of the Doctor racing through some kind of passageway whilst pointing what appears to be his sonic screwdriver" before I read the description.

"One of the enduring preoccupations of HF and SF is the idea of scientific progress."

Jackson Pollock did rather more than than this. His canvases had randomness, yes, but it was a directed randomness that resulted in a remarkable amount of depth. It may well be possible to create a robot that creates an interesting visual image; this isn't it, though.

The robot doesn't appear to be doing anything other than rocking back and forth to swing the arm with the spray nozzle. What's the point?

"Death awaits you all with nasty, big, pointy teeth."

Part of the reason the new series was successful, I think, was that it did what I call an "inline reboot," that is, it changed a lot while at the same time remaining in the same continuity. Star Trek: The Next Generation did the same thing.

"He'll know that you're not swerving, so he'll have to."

The very first episode established that Peter was a genius with an IQ in the 180s, and if I remember right, that he basically dropped out of a number of high-end academic institutions — MIT, etc. He also used his brilliance for various criminal enterprises and con games.

By all means — let's make elections even more complicated (and even involve some math) so they will be easier for the power brokers to steal.

The "Untitled Robert H. Wolfe Project" sounds pretty much exactly like Andromeda, doesn't it?

I think I feel a seizure coming on.

True, but it doesn't take into account promotional costs. I can't find that anywhere, but a rule of thumb is that promotional costs (or at least things that get tagged as promotional costs) are about the same as the production costs. I imagine those costs were substantially less for Fright Night, but still more than…

According to Box Office Mojo, Fright Night barely made back its production costs including domestic and worldwide box office. If you want to see another one, people are going to have to buy a lot of DVDs.

I think you might get away with it. Think about it. Natalie Portman is very small, so her clothes are smaller than normal, so she should be able to get by on less money. Clive Owen is British, and they have the pound sterling there, which is worth more than the dollar, so you could get him for less. Bruce Willis…

A possible solution — instead of spending $100 million to make one movie (which might be good, but will probably be crap), why not spend $10 million each to make 10 thoughtful, creative movies that can afford to take some degree of risk? Sure, it won't have special effects that allow you to count the pores on the nose…

In some versions of the vampire myth, it isn't just entering a home without permission, but rather specifically crossing the threshold. A door's threshold has a lot of metaphysical significance in both Western and Eastern mythologies — carrying a bride across the threshold, not stepping on a threshold and so on.

The only way a Blade Runner sequel might be workable at all is to simply have a completely new story set in the same world, with only a cursory connection to the events of Blade Runner.