Lothic

Actually I was always more amused that Bill Mumy ("Will Robinson" of Lost in Space) was cast as one of non-human aliens on Babylon 5.

Ironically both Bill Mumy and Stephen Furst ("Flounder") did some of the better serious acting work on B5 and it was very easy to forget their former "goofier" characters while watching the show.

Well as least you could admit your... distinct lack of taste. j/k

For what it's worth I didn't outright hate the Wing Commander movie but I can totally understand why it's only rated 3.8/10 on IMDB.

I never assumed we could run down to Best Buy and buy a pair of these tomorrow.
But I'd be surprised if it takes more than say 5 years before some version of these become retail-level technology.

Well this was one of those technologies that was fairly likely bound to happen eventually. Ten years ago we may not have known -when- it was going to hit, but clearly the elements to make it possible were on the horizon and it's a fairly logical progression of the HUD concept.

But I predict, like SilverSablinova mentioned, that a lot of people are going to get themselves into various "accidents" trying to use these things whether they are driving cars or just walking down the street.

Well all we can say for sure is that the pilot wasn't so bad that it -prevented- the regular series from getting made.

Eh, at least you tried Nu-BSG. I keep trying to watch the various Stargate shows with much the same ultimate sense of frustration and lack of interest.

Babylon 5 had several two hour "made for TV" movies including a pilot movie that aired roughly a year before the series itself started. I think it was one of those deals where good reaction to the pilot allowed them to justify making an entire series based on it.

Sure there are plenty of "What-If" scenarios we could talk about that would have made the original Star Wars trilogy far less historically monumental than it was. But I still would not have bothered to mention it directly in a "Worst movie(s) with the Best Cast" thread. The only reason it need be mentioned here was to show how much better they were than the prequel trilogy.

Yes but I did quote you because I agreed with your experience that the first episode called "33" was probably a better hook to entice people to watch the show than the pilot itself.

It's honestly weird for me to see all the hate against Nu-BSG here.

As someone who's seen just about every episode of not only the Nu-BSG reboot series but even every episode of the original 1970s era BSG I have to say that I liked both series for different reasons. To me they both have their strengths and weaknesses. The new series did tend to get a little too "metaphysical" towards its 3rd and 4th seasons, but at least it had 4+ seasons which is a bit of an accomplishment in this age when many shows can't even finish one before they're cancelled.

I'd also agree that the pliot movie of Nu-BSG was not as good a hook for the show as the first regular episode (called "33"). That's too bad because it really does sound like too many people gave up on it too soon after the pilot.

The 1980 Flash Gordon movie is probably one of my all-time gulity pleasure favorites. I would never say it was the "best" movie I've ever seen but for the pure over-the-top sci-fi campiness and fun it can't be beat. It's one of those movies that doesn't take itself super-seriously but still manages to deliver a bunch of memorable scenes and quotes. It's kind of like Fifth Element in that it's a big stylistic space adventure but it actually reminds me a bit more of Big Trouble in Little China with a bit of Barbarella thrown in.

With this upcoming Issue 21 change:

• Keyes Island will now award 2 Empyrean Merits on completion, rather than 1. Additionally, it will award 2 Astral Merits on completion during the Empyrean cooldown period.

It'll be interesting to see if people become more motivated to run that trial. Sure it's a little cheesy that the Devs are having to "entice" us that way but it might work regardless. *shrugs*

Supposedly Clooney is so embarrassed by this movie that even to this day he'll gladly give you money out of his own wallet if you ask him for a refund of the ticket you paid to watch that movie.

I can't really see how the original Star Wars trilogy was brought into this thread in the first place. At the time the first movie was made you had a mix of well known actors (Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing and James Earl Jones) who all had long careers before Star Wars was made and a bunch of newbs (Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher) who were basically unknowns before Star Wars. Besides I would hardly dump the original trilogy into any grouping that was related to the "worst" of any kind of movie. As you said I'd place the Star Wars prequel in this thread long before I'd put the original in it.

Your "conclusion" is simply your opinion on the matter. You haven't really proven or disproven anything.

I could easily live the rest of my CoH playing days without any new Day Job badges. But if the Devs were inclined to give us new ones every month from now on I wouldn't be terribly upset either. It's up to the Devs to decide what they think is "enough" of them using whatever rationales they wish.

At least you'll be ready for the 2125 quake.

Well I don't know about all those other natural disasters but Virginia is already lined up to get a piece of a hurricane in just a few days. Safe safe everyone.

I guess the cute part is that Jason would likely never get the double entendre Hoyt provided with that situation.

Again if you find them annoying that's fine. I don't actually consider them a bed of roses myself.

I just continue to find it funny when obsessive badgers openly whine in the forums about Day Job badges when we all know they are going to do them regardless. It's kind of like mountain climbers complaining about climbing the last 10 feet of Mount Everest. Sure it might be a pain to do but since you're going to do it anyway what's the point in being overly and/or vocally upset about it?

Besides as we all know the "effort" to get them has always been relatively insignificant. To me it's almost on the same level as people with TV remote controls complaining that it's too much trouble to push the buttons. I suppose complaint for complaint's sake will always just be funny to me.

So you think Debbie and Sookie preplanned for Debbie to "rat" her out to the witches as part of some kind of diversion? Really?

I think it's far more likely Sookie asked Debbie to help her get to Eric and Debbie just took advantage of the situation to screw Sookie over. Debbie wasn't serious about the werewolves helping the witches - she was just BSing Antonia and Antonia quickly realized she was being BS'd. After Debbie assumed the witches grabbed and killed Sookie she was clearly upset that Sookie managed to escape.

On the TV show Debbie is:

1) A werewolf (and pretty zealously prideful of being one)
2) A V-addict who's just "fallen off the wagon"
and
3) Semi-insanely jealous of Sookie, the core character of the show

That's pretty much 3 strikes right there. For me she's on the top of the "likely going to die before the end of the season" list. I've enjoyed her time on the show but I just don't see how she can avoid the death-spiral she's on.

Well obviously as a female character inserted into a comic book she was drawn in a more "traditional comic book" style.

Maybe for your purposes it'd be good to re-categorize the game's various legacy mission stories in terms of Hero, Vigilante, Villain and Rogue. No one says you have to like everything the game provides so maybe you can pigeon-hole what you might call "disgusting" as Villainous and what you'd call "glamorous" more Roguish.

I'd agree with your idea that there's a difference between having an "excuse" to be a villain versus having a legitimate "justification" for being one.

Still I think the determination for what makes a character a hero or villain largely depends on what society at large decides to judge them as. The idea of a MMO like this forcing us to "pigeon-hole" ourselves as either villains or heroes at level 1 is a little like putting the cart before the horse. In a more perfect game we'd be able to play a character for like 20+ levels as a "neutral" and have our actions dictate which side we'd be locked into.

Again I think your concern over "disgusting versus glamorous" is an approach to how you judge villains and there's nothing wrong with that. But in a big picture view I don't really think there's a "right" kind of villain as far as that goes. I've seen well written villains be either disgusting or glamorous, and sometimes even both at the same time.

I think the main thing you have to come to terms with when creating any character (villain or not) is to realize there's a difference between the way the rest of the world judges that character versus the way that character sees themselves. Basically there are almost no examples of villains (real or fictional) who genuinely believed they themselves were flawed, crazy or "evil" in any way. Those tend to be negative qualities the rest of society labels them with after-the-fact.

I while I would agree that explaining a villain's motivation by simply saying "he's crazy" is a bit weak I'd also say there'd never really be a well envisioned villain who would ever say of themselves "I do evil things because I'm 'evil' by choice". I'd consider that kind of self description to be equally weak and implausible.

The methods a villain uses to achieve their goals (either disgusting or glamorous) is somewhat different from whether or not the character "considers" themselves to be evil or not. People will weigh those methods and judge whether or not they consider the person to be villainous or heroic regardless of what the character thinks of themselves.

The part I find humorous is the people who currently have pretty much every badge in the game bothering to specifically "complain" about new Day Jobs. Sure they may not like what they have to do to get them, but everyone knows they're going to get them anyway.