Why focus on Gaiman's opinion on the book in the Wikipedia article? Why not focus on the damn book itself? Seems like people are just searching for an excuse not to read the book and they've found it in Gaiman.

As long as being just a little bit better includes "reading a little more," I'm with you.

Well, as someone who has read/watched both, I say: check 'em out! They're neat.

But you don't know if your objection to the book is even relevant until you've read it. Right now you're conjuring up an opinion about a book that exists only in your head.

But why take Gaiman's word for it? Until one actually reads Campbell, one personally doesn't know whether he's worth reading or not.

Yes, the film had a very good script.

"I am afraid of death, and my response to this is to dump my wish-fulfillment fantasies in response to this fear onto young children."
If he's so solipsistic that he can't recognize the basic repulsiveness of doing this, I can see why he might have a marked problem with death.

"I am afraid of death. My solution to this is to impose my wishful thinking about the problem on young children."

Well, if Stolyarov is such a solipsist that he can't see why this is a repulsive thing to do, I can see why death would be a problem for him.

I've been struck by the "short e" sound in fearful words: dread, death, threat, menace. It's my pet theory for why "September 11" is a particularly effective name for a horrible event: deathDEATHdeathdeathDEATHdeath.
(Sorry to be "mor"bid.)

I've long suspected that the origins of life would ultimately have less to do with self-replication and more to do with primitive energy transfer. Very satisfying to read articles like this. I await my Nobel Prize in armchair astrobiology.

This actually resembles boatbuilding and sailmaking facilities I've visited. Neato!

Great historical overview! I've always had a lot of affection for the solar sail. (What's not to like? It's both physically elegant and romantic, just like sailing on the sea.)

Yes to all of that. Exactly my responses to the show.

Yes and no. The prefix is *also* derived from the prefix 'ou,' meaning 'not'. So the word suggests both 'good place' and 'no place.'

Out-flipping-standing. If they carry it off well, it'll be good for the whole SF world.

It's like they've solved the Uncanny Valley problem.

Another door. And behind, another me.

I know, right? When Ceres eventually does gain back its planet status, which I'm sure it will, I can all too easily imagine people suddenly saying, "Golly! A whole new planet right nearby! Why didn't we do this sooner?" Humans are such a funny species sometimes.

Quite a few other threads here already make most of the key points.
Why don't you go and read them?
We're waiting.

It's better than the other two sequels, and plainly so.