I'd buy my ticket online this instant if that were, in any way, possible.

Seriously, who thought that "the future presented in sci-fi classics" WEREN'T rooted in alternate parallel universes? People out there actually thought that all these futures were written to coexist?

Did people actually ask "hey, where are all the Terminator machines?" when watching V for Vendetta? I've never heard anyone say "Children of Men sucked because there were no Hoverboards, which we know for a FACT existed by that time".

This is a well-made little piece of fan art but the idea that this finally "proves" that movie futures are not all coming from the same source is pretty absurd.

They did.

For a movie you seem to harbor nothing but disdain for, you sure do give it a load of publicity.

The Lucas greenscreen photo is Photoshopped and not from 2005 (closer to 2000 or 2001). It was one of the pictures taken on-location in Tunisia during the shooting of Attack of the Clones. Was there a lot of greenscreen used in the Prequels? Obviously. But for someone to take a swipe at him and choose to modify one of the few on-location pictures to do so? Dumb.

And there were as many models and miniatures in the Prequels as there were in the Lord of the Rings films. I know that will upset a lot of people's ironclad opinions but it's true.

So, "fail", as the saying goes.

Whoever wins... we lose.

"I don't get why old bands keep making new music."

...because they want to? Did you seriously just post that on a public website?

He looks like Fred Armisen. In fact, I thought that's who it was, at first (I believed Franco was on the left).

Kevin, to me, spoke much more to the idea of family and being a parent/protector. These two ideas, obviously, were quite prevalent elsewhere in the movie when it came to Charles's dogs, Russell-and-his-father, and the eventual relationship of Carl and Russell.

The idea of Kevin's colors and how a child character mistakenly initially assesses his sex being a deliberate choice related to the filmmakers' feelings on gender/sexual identity and how they relate to Proposition 8 is pretty absurd. What if Kevin was based directly on an actual species of bird that was vibrantly multicolored, like a parrot or toucan? Would it still be a "LGBT" issue if they were trying to keep their story biologically authentic? Many tropical birds have nearly every color of the rainbow represented in their plumage. I can't believe it's anything more than a stab at remaining realistically scientifically accurate in their portrayal of a South American animal (in a movie that has so many surreal aspects), despite what was said about NEMO or RATATOUILLE in 'The Pixar Touch' (which is a good book, without a doubt). Pixar's symbolism tends to operate in broad, story-wide strokes, not individual character's societal/political connections (any effort to maintain that sort of depth/subliminal messaging would eventually derail their writing and stories).

How about this, for a ridiculous Internet-esque theory: the balloons used to float Carl's house look like a rainbow. Carl clearly is gay and has been, for a while (his wife was, too; she was a total tomboy). They got married because of societal pressure, an attempt to hide their lifestyles, and tax incentives. He and his wife weren't UNABLE to have kids, they simply chose not to because they were such longtime friends uninterested in sexual relations. When his faux-wife dies, Carl wants to float far away from the world, in his rainbow cloud, to a place where no one will judge him and his controversial sexual identity.

Pssh. Get real. Don't get me wrong: I like the "let's read into things reaaaallly deeply" game as much as anyone, I just rarely think the conclusions reached by viewers are remotely accurate/true.

Just want to point out: Billy Beane was general manager, not manager.