Druj

This one was not better than the first AvP. Sad but true. The first one was quite bad, yes, but it at least had a veneer of quality (Lance Henriksen, for example) and a slickness to it. The kind of thing that usually tricks the movie audience to go see a movie with above average production values. Requiem felt more like an all out B-movie.

As I said, it would be ok if I thought it was a conscious plot element of the show. I don't believe it is. When a Star Trek episode want to illustrate that we're still just human and we have most of the flaws real world human have, they do it in a much more obvious way. Most of the time when some captain makes one of those supposedly "hard" prime directive decisions, it's always under circumstances that aren't too diffcult to accept. Additionally, the prime directive is almost the only show element that even comes close to living up to the federations standards. And even that gets overridden on more than ten occasions. Other cultural crashes are handled even worse. For example, in the mid fourth season of DS9, Worfs brother Kurn shows up on the station after having been stripped of EVERYTHING that matters in klingon culture. It is partly Worfs fault and Kurn wants Worf to help him perform a sort of ritual suicide so that he might die with honor. All in accordance with what is fully accepted (and actually, respected) in klingon culture. But as usual, the valiant starfleet officers charge to the rescue, stop the ritual and berate Worf for trying to murder his brother. Even if they justify it (weakly) with how it is against starfleet policy, the message is clear. Any form of suicide is bad. And in extension, our cultural taboos is everyones cultural taboos, even completely different fictional cultures. The same goes for a similar episode in TNG, the one where Worf is paralyzed and wants to commit suicide. Again, in perfect accordance with klingon customs. Granted, Picard handled it all very good in that episode, but the rest of the episode really got on my nerves. They used everything from high-flying speeches to crying children to convince us viewer just how bad and wrong that klingon tradition was. And yes, I know no person can be wholly objective. But this post wasn't about why real humans or Star Trek isn't perfect, it is about what irritates me about Star Trek. :)

I love Star Trek. But there are several things about the various series that irritate me and makes me dissappointed. For example, the federation claims to fully accept other cultures and beliefs. But it's bullshit, of course. They only accept it as long as it conforms to what human culture dictates is "ok". That might not be so bad if I thought it was actually some sort of in-story flaw of the humans of that era, but I don't really think it is since the episodes dealing with topics like this always end with how the "human" viewpoint wins out on the alien cultural viewpoint. So I guess it's just the narrow minds of the writers that spill over into the Star Trek universe. This contaminates my enjoyment of the show severly. What about you guys?

Whoops. :-[

I've seen the first four episodes. And...well, I don't know. It didn't hook me. Amanda Tapping was as beautiful and sexy (actually more so than in Stargate, since she's using her own british accent) as ever, but the show concept wasn't all that interesting.

Yeah, I'll wait too. There are some scenes missing in the leaked version, as well.

Science fiction to me is the ultimate medium for telling stories. It has almost no framework to limit the possibilities. The potential for creativity is endless. Also, science fiction have a tradition of philosophic delving and social commentary that you have to respect. The most respected literature is the contemporary or historical kind that explores humanity in various ways. Often through fanciful prose or complicated similes. Which is why I'm puzzled as to why science fiction is regarded as "nerdy" or silly. Much of the more serious, hard science fiction does just that, it analyzed and explores humnanity, only from a different perspective.

I really don't like Kyle XY. It the kind of weak modern "science fiction" that is so common nowadays. The kind of show that always seems to focus on the same, boring kind things. Which most often is clichés about family or "why can't I be a normal teenager" or somesuch.

Aw, September. :-\ That seems like a long time away. Since I'm not a Dr Who fan, there's virtually NO interesting shows on at the moment, so I'm experiencing some withdrawal.

One game that I'm hyped about (that isn't in the list above) is Overlord. You play an evil fantasy overlord that commands imp-like minions and try to take over the world. I suspect all us Dungeon Keeper fans will love it. http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/overlord/index.html?q=Overlord

There is some definite rpg elements to the game. You have an inventory where you can collect junk that you find and you have to eat every day, or else you start to weaken. One thing that bugs me though is that you can carry so little stuff. You have to have medikits, bandages, anti rad-syringes, food and not to mention weapons and ammo. And this starts to weigh you down really fast. You can modify weapons to some degree. You can for example add a scope to certain rifles and add a laser sight to some other weapon, etc. The biggest rpg element is that it's a pretty free game. You roam about on the map pretty much as you please. Also, you get tasks ("quests") that you can do in whatever order you please.

I guess I'm one of those weir(d) ( ;D ) people who generally prefer a little older women.

She was never interesting as a character. And I guess she might be consider hotter than Weir. But I prefer mature sophistication over younger fluff. :)

Info about this sci-fi shooter: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/stalker/index.html?q=S.T.A.L.K.E.R And...I guess there might be some spoilers ahead. If you're really anal about the sort of thing. So...have any of you tried it yet? I've played it for a couple of hours and I still haven't quite made up my mind about wether I like it or not. The premise is cool and all the details are cool. I mean, old soviet pistols that jam occasionally, packs of mutated dogs roaming around, vodka, psionic mutants skulking in dark industrial ruins and a refreshing amount of open-endedness (endedness? is that a real word?) for a FPS. But it does have a few negative aspects. For one, it's hard as hell. I'm playing at difficulty "normal" and I'm getting my ass kicked by just about every enemy I meet. The weapons in the early part of the game are so inaccurate that you have to run up to the enemies and poke the gun in their face to be able to hit them. And one wrong step and some random radioactive anomaly drains half of your life (and naturally, this happens just as you're involved in a desperate firefight with 4 bandits). Also, the information supplied in the game is minimal. I realize they wanted to create a "free" game where you can roam about pretty much as you please, but does that mean that you have to figure out EVERYTHING by yourself? I'm not even sure why I am doing something half of the time. Oh well, I'm going to play it some more. Maybe I'll get a better hang of it as I progress through the game. :)

I never really liked Beckett. So I look forward to seeing someone potentially more interesting in the show. In fact, in Atlantis, there's only one character I really like, and that's McKay. The rest of them are just "meh". Teyla even annoys me to the point that I wish she would just get off the screen. Elizabeth Weir is hot, so while she is bothersome at times too, she's still ok. ;) Hmm, when I think about it, with the exception of Vala, I think the main characters in SG-1 are boring too. I liked O'Neill and his slightly cynical and sarcastic attitude, but as we all know, he left. Browder was great in Farscape, but he doesn't really fit in too well in SG-1.