I'm torn. On the one hand, I'm glad that the U.S. isn't on the bottom of the "anti-science movement in industrialized states" pit. On the other hand, it depresses me that any industrialized state would be so hostile and domineering towards science.

Washington, D.C.'s never exactly been a thriving metropolis to begin with. In fact, it's one of the poorest and most crime-ridden cities in the nation and has been for decades.

Not really. Romeny might win the election (and as you say, he has a decent chance but is hardly guaranteed) but public opinion has consistently shifted towards acceptance of gays becoming the new norm, with a plurality or slim majority in most recent polls favoring gay marriage.

Hey, I'm not saying that capitalism is great in every respect: I'm a firm believer in the need for government regulation and wholly opposed to libertarian ideology. But there are some things that capitalism does really well and others things it does kind of okay. Being inclusive is one of the latter, since it only…

I find it a bit astonishing that after so many people have already pointed that out that Ms. Davis still hasn't gotten around to fixing the article yet.

I'm with Chewgumma. The trailers were slick and nice-looking, but honestly, anyone who's saying they're better than the prequels are just fooling themselves. There's very little story substance there at all and what there is doesn't even amount to what's in the prequels.

To a certain extent amoral capitalism would eventually have to fight bigotry anyway: you don't win in the market by excluding customers or making them feel marginalized. Once a movement like gay rights reaches critical mass, it's only sensible that businesses would embrace it rather than fight against the shifting…

Like others I'm a bit underwhelmed by the Alan Scott thing but am quite happy with this response from DC fans. That's what you get for attempting to rally against geek culture on the internet, I imagine.

You know, while a lot of the commenters here seem to be taking either the "critics hate it, critics suck" or "critics hate it, Prometheus sucks" attitude, I think it's worth nothing that most of these reviews are actually positive: they're just qualified in their positive-ness, singling out issues they found in the…

The Vulture and the Scorpion were also two early Spider-Man villains.

True, though I think Venom gets away with it since he's not exactly a villain and seems to work as often with Parker these days as against him. In any case, his main adversary is Osborn, who is definitely not an evil twin.

Yeah, it's the rare superhero who has a rogue's gallery that extends farther than that. Spider-Man and Batman are two that spring to mind, though even Spider-Man started off mostly fighting animal-themed supervillains.

I think you'll find that viewpoint a bit rare. While it's true Spider-Man 3 was a disappointment, I think most people consider the first two films to be better than, say, The Incredible Hulk or Thor.

I'm not sure how that's relevant, really. Just because it's a Marvel film doesn't mean it'll automatically be better than a Sony one.

From what it sounds like (and given the current 89% rating on Rotten Tomatoes) it sounds like most critics think it's good but not the classic that Alien was.

And I agree, it would be an interesting film to make. I can't really think of a comparable film in science fiction. Sure, there's been plenty of "war is hell" movies set in WWII, Vietnam, or any number of real wars. But there aren't very many (if any) in sci-fi or fantasy.

Actually, I believe Ridley Scott does have a Forever War film in the works.

"Don't Trek actors usually try to ditch their Trek roles as best they can once their shows end?"

Criticizing a Star Trek plot for ripping a story from the headlines is like criticizing Star Wars for featuring space wizards; it kind of comes with the territory.

Quality of the movie aside (which was mediocre admittedly) wasn't that just because he was a wedding guest?