The theory makes a lot of sense but for now it is just that: a theory.

Largely off-topic, but the more I look at a young version of Bruce Campbell, the more I realize how much of a crazy resemblance he has to Nicholas Brandon. It's uncanny I tell you.

Didn't you hear about the Comte de Saint Germain? Still looks not a day over 40!

You're right to a certain extent: pre-modern mortality is often exaggerated by forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the impact of infant morality.

So basically Earth was like Kharak (warm polar regions, hot temperate regions, and completely inhospitable equatorial regions)? Cool. Except not I guess.

Not necessarily. The Ark was meant to be a symbol of Yahweh's contract (covenant) with the ancient Hebrews, so it was more or less their responsibility to take care of it. Sort of like it was their job to keep idols out of the Temple of Solomon, else Yahweh's wrath befall them.

The Book of Revelations has little relevance scholarly to anyone who isn't a Christian. It's rather explicitly not a recording of past events, but a foretelling of future ones and the prophecy is really only accepted by Christians.

It might be worth pointing out that there's a much easier explanation for disregarding the Anubis Shrine claim: Tutankhamun lived centuries before the Kingdom of Israel was established.

You make a point, although the ancient Hebrews are rather legendary for the amount of detail they put into describing things like that, so you'd think they'd at least make an attempt at keeping it accurate.

The Grail was a legend invented by a French adaptation of the Arthurian legends. The Ark, on the other hand, is repeatedly referenced to in several of the books of the Old Testament. My guess is that the Grail is completely artificial, whereas the Ark is actually based on some ritual item the ancient Hebrews actually…

I don't see any reason to doubt whether it existed.

As I said to another poster, I don't really need to be convinced to like the show. I'm not a "huge fan" (to use my exact words) but I like it well enough. But thanks for your thoughts.

It's more that Bond used to sort of treat his sexual conquests dismissively. There's nothing wrong with having sex with a lot of women sequentially, but it was obvious Bond was exploiting them in a lot of the earlier films where they'd act like they were in love with him while he'd ditch them within half an hour for…

"It has an intensity of whimsy that I'm sure rubs some people the wrong way. I saw someone describe it as "Zooey Deschanel crap" which is ridiculous, but is probably the misperception people are reacting to, as non-ironic whimsy is a big target for troll ire (e.g. MLP:FIM)."

Totally agree, 100%.

Eh? I've always liked The Living Daylights and have never seen it as cartoony. To me it has a lot more gravitas than a lot of the Brosnan films.

I actually kind of liked the fact that Craig's Bond only got a few sexual conquests in comparatively, particularly in Quantum of Solace (although that film certainly did have problems). For one thing, it highlighted the fact that he was still in mourning over Vesper's betrayal and death in the previous film. Secondly,…

Clearly you haven't heard of this trope.

But unless we're talking about a complete and utter sociopath (who is also a sadist), that's not the most likely kind of villain you're going to run into. I have no straight up data to back me here, but I'd guess that even most sociopaths are closer to being routine jerks and compulsive liars than serial killers.

Sounds like I should give it another try then. Thanks.