Thank you so much for the shout-out! I really appreciate the linkage even if (and especially because) you disagree with me. Thank you. :)

Four years?! I can't believe it! :) WOO HOO!

Happy birthday! And thank you so much for everything!

1) Um, Captain America is still going to be Captain America in the film. Changing the name doesn't change that. And he WAS the First Avenger, and that already IS part of the American title.

2) Again, movie titles change for overseas markets ALL THE TIME. Both on our movies going out, and foreign films coming in. How many movies from other countries have you watched that have the same exact title as it had in its home country. Probably NONE as many Americans wouldn't take the time to try and pronounce them correctly. Then again, how many movies from other countries have you seen PERIOD?

3) Believe it or not, other countries don't care as much about America as we do. *gasp* Shocking, I know! So the word America might not draw them into the theaters! Whereas by changing the title, more people will go and GET the message about a fictional American hero than would have had they left the title the same. And isn't THAT more important? Actually getting the story OUT THERE?!

And how brilliant a guest star was Christopher Lloyd?! The scene where he played piano and was talking about his son broke my heart. And the scene where Walter realizes that his son dying was HIS fault?! Oh, Fringe! Why have you been making me CRYYYYYYY.

This has been, by far, the best season of Fringe yet, and I've loved the show from the beginning. Not only have the stories been amazing, but the entire cast is gelling SO well.

It's funny, though - Walter's glasses made me think of Spider Jerusalem in the comic, Transmetropolitan. Except his glasses had two lenses that were the same size. :)

The interesting thing that I thought this episode highlighted was that Peter does not, in fact, truly love her. That was the heartbreaking bit for me. I mean, he loves her, but he's not IN love with her, and Olivia called him on it. He loved the idea of Olivia, and when Fauxlivia came along, she had all the stuff he wished real Olivia had, so he could truly love her. Honestly, I can understand that. Fauxlivia - were it not for the fact that she was LYING ABOUT HER INTENTIONS - is cooler than real Olivia.

I can't believe you didn't talk about the marionette of the title, though. THAT was heartbreaking (and creepy), watching this guy put this girl back together again and making her dance. I couldn't breathe during that scene, and I cried. This episode was completely intense. I LOVE FRINGE! :)

Aww, man. See, I wanted to love Machete. I really did. But I didn't. I liked things ABOUT it - like Michelle Rodriguez as a revolutionary leader named She. :) And Jessica Alba as a Hispanic immigration officer. And I definitely appreciated the campy fun of it. It's why I saw the movie in the first place. And it was exploring some really interesting ideas through those two characters I mentioned.

The thing is, it didn't seem like it knew what kind of movie it wanted to be. It would be really campy, but then get really serious about immigration. It didn't get its tone right, so I couldn't enjoy the ride. Also, a lot of it was SO over the top that it landed on the other side with a thud.

But I did love that Danny Trejo got all those ladies! Because he freaking earned it.

However, I'm convinced that I will never like anything that Don Johnson is in. Johnson is my kryptonite. He was in Machete, and I didn't like it too much. He was on Eastbound and Down, and I think that's the least funny show I've ever had the misfortune of watching two episodes of. So my new rule is: if Don Johnson's in it, run the other way!

And Lindsay Lohan? Come on. There's just nothing good about
that.

"Do you have any idea how many people I’ve encountered who insist their families came over on the Mayflower (despite a readily available passenger list)? The Mayflower would have to have been like the TARDIS inside to accommodate that many people. Just saying."

THAT made me laugh out loud! :)

Amen! Or a new Wonder Woman TV show, even! SOMETHING!

I'm so glad you wrote about this, Amy! I was going to include it in a "Sex and the Single Geek Girl" column, but never got around to it. And I'm SO glad it exists! :)

Also, I don't know if any of you have read The Sparrow by Maria Doria Russell, but if you haven't, I'd highly recommend it. It's a first contact sci-fi story wherein the protagonist is a Puerto Rican priest, and the first mission to another planet is funded by the Jesuits. :) Really well done as far as a sci-fi/religion balance, I think.

Haven't been around the site in a bit - sorry!

Just wanted to clarify that I know, Lisa, that you know about the different sciences! :) I'd never say you don't. I just meant that they should be kept in mind when considering sci-fi. What I was trying to say is that a writer putting a spiritual element into a science fiction script is, in itself, an anthropological/sociological study. The movie doesn't have to be "about" spirituality. By merely putting scientific-minded characters in the face of something unscientific, the writer is trying to do something. Now, Knowing might have been a horrible movie for many reasons - I don't know, I haven't seen it - but it just seems like you're saying that "God being the answer" makes sci-fi bad all the time, and that's where I disagree with you. I think it can be really interesting when done well.

Then again, I think that the BSG and Lost finales are examples of that, and I already know how you and Rhea feel about those, so never mind. :)

@Kurd55 - spirituality isn't "easy." And science isn't "hard." After all, what people seem to want most from hard science SF are answers. What's more simple than getting an answer? What's more complex than uncertainty?

Generally speaking, even in cases of sci-fi where God is "the answer", there are still loads of questions to be wrestled with, and the ending is usually left "open-ended" enough to try and appease both the more science-minded viewer who will probably complain anyway because of its inclusion at all, or the religious person who doesn't see "their version" of God represented. What would be interesting is a sci-fi story that makes a firm decision about who/what God is and how God works in the particular world of that story.

I guess I get all in a snit about stuff like this because, to me, God doesn't take away from science AT ALL. Whether there is a God or not doesn't change how stuff works, and it doesn't take away from us figuring that out. I also think that science doesn't take away from God. If there is a Higher Power (and I've always leaned toward that being true), that Higher Power's got quite a machine set up in this here Universe, and science is figuring out what makes that machine go. The two have never been mutually exclusive to me, so I just don't see how that's the case for people on either side of the spectrum. I mean, I don't watch a movie that is all science and no spirituality and sit there going "There should be more God in this!" either.