13 comments posted · 3 followers · following 0

8 years ago @ - \"Well Played.\" · 0 replies · +2 points

Original Kirk once had a literal Greek God grab the ship with a giant, hand-shaped energy field capable of crushing the shit out of it in "Who Mourns for Adonais" and still managed to walk away with his vessel intact. Chris Pine aint got shit on that...

8 years ago @ - \"Well Played.\" · 3 replies · +6 points

I love the original TOS. For me, TOS, TNG and DS9 are three parts in a trinity of unassailable awesomeness. I love the pulpy, campy flavor of TOS, the cerebral deliberation of TNG, and the darker, more down-to-earth nature of DS9. But I utterly despise this trailer for a single reason: alt-universe Kirk is still captain and has ONCE AGAIN gotten his ship plowed into the ground. Christ dude, the original Kirk went up against giant space amoebas, literal gods, and fucking Khan Noonien Singh (the real one) and managed to get the Enterprise out in one piece every time. Meanwhile, this Chris Pine dipshit can't go a single movie as Captain without his ship crashing into a goddamn planet. And the fact that he's somehow still captain of the Federation Flagship despite it being clear that he's an idiot who's unfit to command a space U-Haul just shows how poorly the people making these things have written both Starfleet and the Federation...

8 years ago @ - · 0 replies · +3 points

In the first of the new films "Battle of the Gods" (and unofficial start of the new Dragonball series), Goku achieves a new form called Super-Saiyan God, in which he powers up to fight Beerus, God of Destruction, on equal terms. So yeah, now the most recent "ultimate form" of a Saiyan is Blue or (in some cases for unexplained reasons) glowing Red.

8 years ago @ - Review: TERMINATOR GEN... · 0 replies · +1 points

One of the most annoying things about the last two Terminator movies (apparently, since I'm not going to see Genisys) is that despite how awful they are, they keep flirting with nuggets of good ideas. In this one, it was (again, apparently) Sarah Connor railing against her destiny to be nothing more than an incubator for a future messiah and robbing her of her agency to choose what she wanted from life. In Salvation (which, unfortunately, I did see), it took the form of an alternate ending, in which John Connor dies, but because people rarely see him and almost no one who knows what he looks like is still alive besides his wife, they simply replace him with the cyborg guy and say HE's John Connor, implying that our society's obsession with Messianic archetypes and myths is nothing more than an elaborate shell-game designed to give people a symbol to rally around. Nothing worst than fascinating ideas that get cut or buried under mountains of bullshit :P

8 years ago @ - IN BOB WE TRUST: \"Doe... · 0 replies · +8 points

The issue with Batman, I think, is the narrative of Bruce Wayne as "The Prince of Gotham." In a way, it seems like he's bought into his own hype a little on this. He is a feudal lord, ruling over Gotham as his own private fiefdom, taking the accolades that come with being the scion of the most powerful family in the city. And when the peasantry get desperate and step out of line, he takes it upon himself to put them back in their place, with the unspoken blessing of a local constabulary beholden to him (both as Wayne and as Batman). This isn't a superhero comic anymore, this is fucking "Ivanhoe."

8 years ago @ - Review: TOMORROWLAND · 0 replies · +1 points

Not if there isn't any context to what your showing them. It's not as if he beamed a detailed treatise into their brains outlining the projected decline of their civilization based on current economic and cultural trends, nor did he make it clear to humanity that it was their actions that would cause it or explain how they came about this irrefutable evidence. Self-preservation instinct only works if there is a clear, logical context for what's happening: i.e., there's a tiger 10 feet from me, and if I don't flee or stab it in the face I'm going to die. If you just beam a bunch of random horrible images into the brain of a sentient being, basic psychology tells you that all you're going to do is fuck them up and give them some kind of psychiatric disorder (for example, collective clinical depression). It's a moronic, half-baked scheme, brought to you by the (supposedly) greatest minds in the world :P

8 years ago @ - Review: TOMORROWLAND · 1 reply · +2 points

You make some good points, though the robot thing is a bit more of a grey area. Killer robots and robot spouses/significant others would both be equally morally reprehensible IF (and I must stress the IF) that was the purpose they were created for. An artificial intelligence who was made simply to be a person who eventually developed emotional awareness and fell in love with a human would, of course, be no more wrong than a human doing the same thing. The main reason we get into questions of human-robot interaction possessing special moral considerations is in the question of agency (i.e., if you create a being to do something without a choice vs. simply creating a being who acts in a manner of their own volition). I can't speak as to America's love affair with autonomous death bots, but I would be pretty wary of someone with a artificial significant other until it was definitively established to me that they were together out mutual volition and not by essentially enslaving a sapient being.

8 years ago @ - Review: TOMORROWLAND · 1 reply · +3 points

But that undermines the whole question of what makes these people "moral." First of all, their decision to discard their wealth is meaningless, since material wealth is a societal construct and would have been rendered moot anyway if society collapsed (therefore rendering their decision to abandon it not really "moral" by any measure). Likewise, responding to people being shiftless and corrupt by just shrugging your shoulders and saying "fuck it" while all the world dies (presumably in a series of events that would erupt in a nuclear war that would render the planet generally inhospitable to life) is, at best, a thoroughly amoral decision. I'll admit that it's been a while since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but what really turned me off from it would probably be the fact that, at least from what I read, that Rand's view of how things should be only works in a world where literally everyone is freakishly insane (in the worst possible way), and where so-called "morality" boils down to a conflict between two different flavors of sociopaths.

8 years ago @ - Review: TOMORROWLAND · 3 replies · +3 points

What precisely makes their plan "moral"? They intend to come back, rebuild and rule after society has collapsed and presumably countless people have perished in the on-rushing apocalypse of human civilization? That doesn't sound moral, that sounds like a coordinated effort to seize power by a handful of megalomaniacs.

8 years ago @ - Review: TOMORROWLAND · 2 replies · +5 points

One thing that really blows my mind is the whole "beaming doomsday images into people's brain" thing. This is supposed to be a civilization of the most brilliant people who ever lived, ruled by someone at least as brilliant (if not more so). And yet, they are shocked (for some reason) that fucking with the collective mind of the entire human race has unseen, negative consequences, and then somehow arrive at the mind-numbingly stupid conclusion that this is somehow the fault of said human race (as opposed to theirs for essentially brainwashing humanity). This is a society of the smartest humans who ever lived? What the hell?!