If it would make you any less insult-prone, I'd be very happy from now on to begin every statement I make about a film with, "Well, in my opinion," so that you can't accuse me of feigning pretense to objectivity when I certainly haven't.

Actually, my problem with the film's incoherence is that it a) is uncompelling because the rest of the film does very little to get you invested in following its narrative or its characters down the rabbit whole and b) is the sort of incoherence that prompts people to call its naysayers "insecure and juvenile."

Because people will probably respond you with "you just didn't get it," and imply that you an imbecile, and then tell you that this is The Thinking Man's(TM) Sci-Fi, and that as a Thinking Man or Thinking Woman the film was immediately clear to them following much stern contemplation of its depths, let me just jump in…

zomg, are you all going to do Hannibal too when it comes back on the air? I vote that it inherit the format from True Blood recaps.

I was just about to request this, too. With True Blood ending soon, Hannibal seems like the next balls-to-the-walliest show deserving of PRO/CON recap treatment, complete with GIF's of Will Graham's perennial "THIS IS MY DESIGN" and beautiful, cannibalistic food-porn pans.

As someone who generally plays Druid, I kind of appreciate how many sub-types of Druid there are, even if some of these seem kind of laughable. Granted, as this article continually points out, D&D should be about encouraging folks to come up with a viable, interesting back-story instead of establishing sub-classes…

Let's do this thing.

"I understand Nolan's Bat-movies are "realistic" and "gritty," but if I wanted realistic and gritty I wouldn't be watching a movie about a man dressed up as a bat fighting crime."

Sorry, my tone is really off today. I'm not trying to quibble or be difficult with you here, I'm just pointing out that the stud if the study is concerned with conflicting definitions of what "counts" as science—and so has a definition of science in mind—then it couldn't hurt for its writers to be equally transparent…

Unless I'm missing something, that's not really a definition so much as a list of things associated with astrology. Moreover, asking "Do you ever associate with these things?" right before "But are they science?" seems like it could be loaded.

Thanks for tracking this down. I still think this could be put more clearly. If this is about definitions for what counts as "science," then why not at least provide working definitions for the sciences/pseudosciences in question?

Sure, although I think the smugness here of "X is clearly a science, Y is clearly not!" ignores a lot of ambiguity and nuance about how sciences (and indeed the category of "science" itself) "develop" historically.

... And how many of those people can't distinguish between "astronomy" and "astrology?" This seems like a linguistic issue more than anything. Yes, it's embarrassing, but most people can't even get their/they're/there down, and those are much more quotidian words.

This is my response, too. I'm pretty sure the solution to moronic, institutionalized homophobia isn't making what is basically a gay joke. Given that homophobia is usually about gender-policing as much anything else, this is pretty tone deaf and counter-intuitive.

I think technically Riley counts as "Fragile Male Ego."

If I'm being honest, Dawn Summers never got sympathetic for me. When the plot device overstays its welcome, it's time for it to, well... Follow its own advice.

It's hilarious what they don't let fly, though. If you've seen the DVD version, you know that the cut episode centers on a woman (Molly Shannon) who gets young boys to kill their parents after running away with her. Granted, the episode has some really mean twists on queer kinship that make me deeply ambivalent, but…

To be fair, when that show isn't all about "defeated by the power of love," it's all about "defeated by the power of humanism," even when it doesn't make any sense.