Except he's not saying they aren't born with professional training - that much goes without saying. He's saying that people aren't born with the level of critical thought and inclination to question their own assumptions that is at the core of what being a good scientist is.

It depends. For some developers, yes. For others, no.

I think a large part of that is that when a game company goes into make a pitch to a publisher, they often don't have a working game in place.

While I don't expect the sequels to hold themselves to every event that's occurred in EU, I kind of would like them to keep the fact that Chewie's dead, much as I like the character. It adds a bit of gravitas to the world if we know that, in the time that's passed between the old movies and the new, not everybody is…

I get what you're saying and I sort of agree. That said, these films are a lot more accessible than the original series, which has an intense amount of emotional whiplash starting around the middle episodes.

It's essentially more upbeat (sort-of). Shinji is more assertive, Misato is less dysfunctional, Asuka is less abrasive, and Rei is more humanized. Most of the slapstick is also cut out (though not all of it) along with a great deal of the esotericism and philosophy. The psychological trauma is also reduced.

The physics have never been very accurate for that particular detail. You're right, they should look like they're moving in water. But they never have.

Except she didn't even claim to be a geek within the story. She just said that she liked his shirt.

I'm not sure I want to wait until the film reaches the states; I may have to brush up on my Japanese.

Apparently, he's totally cool with that.

Does that really hurt geekdom/nerdom in any way? If not, why bother making the distinction other than to exclude others because you think they're faking it?

True, but that's not what most people are referring to when they talk about a movie's RT score. The primary rating (i.e., the one that's stuck next to a film's name on the site) is based merely on the balance of positive and negative reviews.

Technically, RT doesn't actually score films. They just weigh how many reviews of a movie are positive and how many are negative. Unlike Metacritic they don't actually take into account the score a review assigns either, so that a 5 star review and 3 star review are both weighted equally (since both are on the whole…

I've heard it was pretty decent. Not an instant classic, but alright.

It's the title of a short story Ian Fleming wrote.

Agreed. It was retreading water to a certain extent. I didn't mind that Bond was after revenge (no matter what he claimed), but it did seem like he took a step backwards from Casino Royale.

In fairness, the plan makes sense, even if it's very mundane. Water is a valuable resource. It's just that "ha, ha now I will racket up your utilities bill" sounds kind of lame compared with "ha, ha now I will blow up an airplane to increase my wealth." Both are screwing over other people to get money, but the latter…

Actually, I've more consistently heard arguments that QoS was too realistic and that it wasn't fun like the good ol' Moore or Brosnan films.

I guess it depends what you mean by "unnecessary." Everyone I know who's seen Casino Royal have always immediately wanted to know what happened to Mr. White and whether the mystery of Le Chiffre's killers was ever solved. I know why was waiting eagerly to find out what this new SPECTRE-esque organization was.

While I think Quantum of Solace is underrated, I do have to agree with most of the specific points you raise. In just about every way one could think of, QoS was a downgrade from Casino Royale. The villain was less interesting, Bond less humanized, the action more poorly directed, the plot more confusing, etc.