That’s fine, but I agree that it doesn’t feel like an actual ship full of people, like even the Shenzhou did. None of the bridge crew has any sort of personality.

And maybe it’s not a full-on TNG holodeck (you can’t boink the holograms or climb mountains) but a VR projection. It’s cool, so I will explain it away.

Directed by Akiva Goldsman.

Which new Star Trek movie was the surprisingly fun one?

I went and saw this, alarmingly — and the way the phrase is used in the movie (the same way you’d blurt “bullshit!”at unexpected, surprising news - except it’s “bullshit... artist!”) makes no sense (to the audience, or apparently, the actor).

Who is Charlie’s guardian?

And probably also because, on the surface, it makes us sound superior to the UK/EU.

I hate when commenters get pedantic, er, but I’ll do it anyway - stories are saying that the EU Human Rights Court ruled to pull the plug, when they actually ruled not to hear the case (because it had already been decided by three UK courts).

Yep. These specific people both work for The Rebel, Canada’s answer to Breitbart. I suspect they (or at least their editors) know that, but won’t let that get in the way of outrage.

Why? Because,like Edelstein’s, it makes some valid points?

Why does she need to be American? I actually like that this movie isn’t chanting “USA!”

For Christ’s sake - he’s talking about a scene in the movie, where, in 1919, women don’t talk to men like Gadot’s Diana does. And it’s played in a way that shows, yes, she shouldn’t understand that because it’s stupid. He’s DESCRIBING THE MOVIE.

Uh, it’s in the movie.

But this isn’t funny - or valid criticism. Edelstein’s piece doesn’t say anything remotely like this.

Are you kidding? I still don’t understand the outrage. I’m a feminist, a WW fan and liked the movie okay, but I think its a perfectly valid review. What’s sexist or misogynist about it?

Because she wanted to murder the guy she thought was the god of war so everything would be over (she thought) - and he, er, disagreed.

Who says he colluded with the Russians? We don’t know yet. It’s seemingly fishy and/or dumb (although also apparently consistent with the accepted view of his personality) that he’s denying that Russia was trying to influence the election while trying to get the feds to stop looking into it.

Exactly. No decency. No high ground.

What I really don’t understand is how anybody who’s not a scorched Earth Trump supporter can still argue that he’s better than Clinton (who will, the argument goes, willsomehow destroy the country) or any democrat.

I’m trying to figure out which Trump wrote this.