(But now that I think about it, by the same token the altered footage then becomes less "neat," because the original footage is already fake.)

The difference is that this is using supposedly authentic footage of real soldiers in real peril. (But as xenophone says above, much "authentic" footage of WWI isn't actually authentic.)

I wondered about that. (Whether much of the footage is re-enacted.) That would change things.

According to the excerpt, they detected a neutral charge at the ends of the wire and also determined that the ends of the wire are where the fermion would be. So this is evidence of an actual particle.

The whole "wish-fulfillment" thesis of the article is really key for me. The audience implied by the film is amazingly self-pitying and basically juvenile in its attitude. "They'll be sorry — WHEN I'M GONE..."

On one level, neat, but on another, in dubious taste. Imagine similar manipulation of footage of the invasion of Normandy, or of the napalming of a Vietnamese village.

Calling it a "cloak" is misleading, since I think what most people understand by a cloak is a field of invisibility surrounding an object when viewed by normal vision. In the current case, the "invisibility" effect is being generated by placing an object *inside* a lens system. The device is not an invisibility…

Not sure this is correct. Doesn't the neon in a neon light glow because it is ionized — because an electrical current is passing through it? That's not the same as neon getting "heated up and excited." Just adding pressure or friction won't make neon glow.

As others have said here, I think it has to do with his time as the War Doctor.

I'd have to watch episode again to verify, but it seemed to me that after the Doctor saw Clara with Adrian and drew the wrong conclusion, his fond expression and his "Oh, Clara!" were very definitely channeling Matt Smith's look and delivery.

I'd have to watch episode again to verify, but it seemed to me that after the Doctor saw Clara with Adrian and drew the wrong conclusion, his fond expression and his "Oh, Clara!" were very definitely channeling Matt Smith's look and delivery.

Puzzled that this has been making the rounds as news. I mean, essentially *all* the elements that make up the solar system were present prior to solar ignition, yes? What does the sun in particular have to do with the presence of water?

I saw it on opening night. Convinced my dad to take me. I was eleven, and savvy about SF productions — I knew the effects team was basically the same one that had made "Space: 1999," so I was certain it would look good.

The film almost gave me a heart attack. My poor dad felt pretty remorseful afterwards!

Well, it seems to me that chloroplast plus artificial leaf-structure does legitimately equal artificial leaf.

Quite liked that.

Although the fact that these are all *in the past* does mean we're living in some kind of future or other.

Of course Pluto's a planet. The whole "cleared out its orbital neighborhood" criterion is asinine.

Quite enjoyed this. One thing I deeply appreciate about Moffat (& company) is the ability to cram a lot of substantial material into one storyline. You've got timey-wimey, aliens, tech, Doctor-vs.-Companion, reversals, etc. etc. I find it all impressive and admirable and fun.

Another important precursor to the Disney film may be the 1930 stop motion animated feature from Ladislas Starevich on Reynard the Fox.

Actually, it... kind of reminds me of Jackson's Lord of the Rings.