I think Ghostbusters would make an awesome TV show. Actually, I think it already has made an awesome TV show: the cartoon The Real Ghostbusters was far better than any animated tie-in to an early 1980s movie had any right to be, and was, IMO, a superior continuation of the first movie than the actual theatrical…

I actually think Ghostbusters is better situated than most Hollywood ideas to support a multi-film franchise or, dare I say it, a full cinematic universe. There are thousands of ghost stories out there, and they get comparatively little attention in movies.

I don't get it, either, frankly. Nothing Feig does is going to change anything about the original movie. The original isn't some precious, obscure snowflake whose reputation needs to be zealously protected. And the concept itself is simple enough that it's a bit strange to expect it to never be revisited (not to…

Haven't they already been confirmed for Infinity War? They could withdraw, of course, but they'd be just as likely to withdraw from Ghostbusters, given the high profile nature of the Marvel franchise. And that's if there's a conflict in the first place.

Providence was the home of H.P. Lovecraft. He was immensely proud of the place, and it's reflected in all sorts of ways in his work (not least of which the city of Arkham, a serial-numbers-filed-off expy for the place).

This is mentioned, explicitly, in the article. The reason why Harris and LeMay are mentioned here is because what they were doing was not traditional strategic bombing. Dresden was not a significant military or industrial target, and it was carried out only once the outcome of the war was pretty much a foregone…

The point is that this wasn't strategic bombing, at least in the traditional sense. It's right there in the article: they weren't targeting military or industrial targets. The goal wasn't to destroy their enemies' ability to wage war, it was to demoralize (i.e., terrorize) them. It even talks about Harris's theory…

I would agree... except for the scene at the beginning of the movie, where creepy CGI Jeff Bridges is actually supposed to be young Jeff Bridges. Otherwise, it worked.

I *hated* Mode 7 effects back in 1991. I thought they looked hideous and cheap. Age has not improved them. But kudos to the developers here for implementing a gross-looking but certainly technically challenging look on the Genesis.

Nah, Moffat has never been involved with Torchwood. That's all RTD's baby. The reason there hasn't been anything since Miracle Day is because the budget-conscious BBC won't pay enough to make it happen, and no one else will kick in a share after Miracle Day's poor reception.

I agree with Moffat about limiting the long-term supporting cast of the show. That said, that seems like an argument in favor of a spin-off. Once Captain Jack had his own show, he didn't have to constantly show up on Doctor Who.

Rome was not especially well known for its technological advances, actually. It would be a bit too much to say that they were technologically stagnant (as some historians have actually done), but the biggest innovations of antiquity tended to come from others. Particularly the Phoenicians and later the Greeks, both of…

Nope. It's a terrible CG version of Jeff Fahey. I can see why you'd be confused though: it's almost as unconvincing and lifeless as Nicholas Cage himself! (Kidding, really! I actually like Nic Cage.)

Yes, this. Well, I guess there's the fact that there's technically a reference to the mowing of lawns in both movies, too.

Second sequels are bad news for superhero franchises. See also Superman 3, or Batman Forever (though in both cases, they were overshadowed by the epic terribleness of the next films in the franchise). I guess Iron Man 3 kinda sorta dodged that bullet: it's not one of my favorite Marvel movies, but it's better than Iron…

I stand by everything else, though, regarding design fundamentals (though I was applying them to a faulty premise). And you're gonna have a hard time convincing me that 'efficient' is a buzzword when associated with design.

Anyway, your point comes down to "I don't like it." Which is fine. I do like it, and it works quite well for me.

Well, I didn't say "It's not a big deal." I said "It's not an issue at all."

This is the best reasoning I've seen yet. But there's a flip side to it, as well. Sometimes you want your users to think. The kind of behavior you've described is not only poor information seeking behavior, but it is a potential security nightmare. Combine that with the problem of "border cases" like I've described…

Elsewhere in this discussion I mentioned a negative effect of the combined location/search bar design being that it encouraged poor search behavior. This is a superb example of that in action. If I am looking for occurrences of the specific phrase "gizmodo.com," I should be able to search for that phrase, not search…