The only show I'd consider truly sci-fi at this point that I watch and enjoy is "Andromeda." I expected it to turn out as "wonderfully" as "Earth Final Conflict" so my expectations were really low, but it turned out to be quite a gem. The community off of the official site on the boards is devoted and the information they make available is of fansite calibur in information and quality.
There are rumors of them fleshing out Trance's character and a few others so they are a bit less two dimentional. I am eagerly anticipating the next season to see how they get out of the mess they left the season finale's cliffhanger with. How they resolve this will be a good key as to how much longer I keep watching.
Things that are "sort of" sci-fi that I tend to watch include "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," "Angel," "Roswell," "Stargate SG-1," and TNT's "Witchblade." The latter is slowly shaping up to be slightly better than what it started out as, which is good because I think it has the potential to be a great series (much like ST:TNG and its' rocky first season).
I stopped watching "The X-Files" in the fourth season because it just went too far downhill for me to enjoy anymore. I miss Space: Above and Beyond that Morgan and Wong (X-Files alums) and wish it had been given more of a chance.
I'm also cheesed Fox axed "The Lone Gunmen." I enjoyed that show quite a bit, as TLG were always my favorite X-Files side characters.
The classics that are still around that I watch are ST:TNG, ST:TOS, and Dr. Who.
On the plus side, a lot of Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies appear to be coming out soon like the tenth Trek movie, Red Dwarf, and Lord of the Rings.
I have to say, Jackie Chan doing his own stunts and making them look so easy never ceases to amaze me.
The one stunt that blew my mind was when he was running through the count room because that was one continuous shot. That was one heck of a stunt to try to do in only one shot.
The plot holes I found were excuseable. Nobody goes to a Jackie Chan movie expecting an Oscar calibur script.
The outtakes at the end were a little disappointing though, they're usually much funnnier than that.
I am very much looking forward to the proposed Jackie Chan/Jet Li project that's being tossed around. These two martial arts gurus in one movie will be mind blowing. I just hope the plot Robert Mark Kamen (Kiss of the Dragon) comes up with doesn't make it more of a vehicle for one or the other, however I think being in a film with Chan will help Li out quite a bit, giving him even more exposure that he is well deserving of.
Revolution Studios expects production to begin Fall 2002 and I can't wait!
The blatant assumption on the part of the author that "geek" women aren't just as affectionate as the "non-geek" women is insulting. Simple because a woman understands computer related technology does not instantaneously render her incapable of giving and receiving affection. A "geek" woman is indeed just as capable of this feat, for understanding technology does not render a woman emotionally impotent as the author seems to imply. In fact, a "geek" woman would be more likely to understand her significant other's obsession with sitting in front of a machine for more than twelve hours a day than the "non-geek" woman. "Geek" women also tend to be fairly self-reliant and won't constantly nag at "geek" men to do things for her. While I understand that men appreciate being needed, being needed to help lift something or for company is different from being needed by some women to simply leave the house.
The happy homemaker being described by the author is a rare commodity in this day and age. The woman who enjoys cooking and cleaning and a few moments with her significant other seems to have become a part of '50's television reruns and been replaced by the "modern" female. This woman, while she may enjoy cooking and/or cleaning, also enjoys skiing, working at a competitive job, and a myriad of other activities. Assuming that this '50's female is the end-all solution for every "geek" man is incredibly narrow-sighted on the part of the author.
Comparing a woman's appearance to packaging is unflattering to say the least, and sometimes deceptive. I personally know many sweet, caring women who get dolled up and fawned over by many men, but are still looking for an equally sensitive Mr. Right. Assuming what a person's personality is based on appearance is incredibly shallow and shortsighted. While a good deal can be gleaned from a person's appearance,, narrowing their personality down based solely upon this is a major error on the part of anyone who does this. You might be missing out on "Ms. Right" by doing this.
I don't completely disagree with what the author has stated. In fact, his advice on giving honest compliments and asking questions is right on the mark. The fact that he seems to think that "geek" guys should avoid considering dating a "geek" woman to seemingly avoid some kind of "geek" competition is rather off-base. Why can't you discuss computer hardware with a woman? Who knows, you might possibly discover during the course of discussing this that you have many other interests in common.
Slashdot Mirror
The only show I'd consider truly sci-fi at this point that I watch and enjoy is "Andromeda." I expected it to turn out as "wonderfully" as "Earth Final Conflict" so my expectations were really low, but it turned out to be quite a gem. The community off of the official site on the boards is devoted and the information they make available is of fansite calibur in information and quality.
There are rumors of them fleshing out Trance's character and a few others so they are a bit less two dimentional. I am eagerly anticipating the next season to see how they get out of the mess they left the season finale's cliffhanger with. How they resolve this will be a good key as to how much longer I keep watching.
Things that are "sort of" sci-fi that I tend to watch include "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," "Angel," "Roswell," "Stargate SG-1," and TNT's "Witchblade." The latter is slowly shaping up to be slightly better than what it started out as, which is good because I think it has the potential to be a great series (much like ST:TNG and its' rocky first season).
I stopped watching "The X-Files" in the fourth season because it just went too far downhill for me to enjoy anymore. I miss Space: Above and Beyond that Morgan and Wong (X-Files alums) and wish it had been given more of a chance.
I'm also cheesed Fox axed "The Lone Gunmen." I enjoyed that show quite a bit, as TLG were always my favorite X-Files side characters.
The classics that are still around that I watch are ST:TNG, ST:TOS, and Dr. Who.
On the plus side, a lot of Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies appear to be coming out soon like the tenth Trek movie, Red Dwarf, and Lord of the Rings.
I have to say, Jackie Chan doing his own stunts and making them look so easy never ceases to amaze me.
The one stunt that blew my mind was when he was running through the count room because that was one continuous shot. That was one heck of a stunt to try to do in only one shot.
The plot holes I found were excuseable. Nobody goes to a Jackie Chan movie expecting an Oscar calibur script.
The outtakes at the end were a little disappointing though, they're usually much funnnier than that.
I am very much looking forward to the proposed Jackie Chan/Jet Li project that's being tossed around. These two martial arts gurus in one movie will be mind blowing. I just hope the plot Robert Mark Kamen (Kiss of the Dragon) comes up with doesn't make it more of a vehicle for one or the other, however I think being in a film with Chan will help Li out quite a bit, giving him even more exposure that he is well deserving of.
Revolution Studios expects production to begin Fall 2002 and I can't wait!
The blatant assumption on the part of the author that "geek" women aren't just as affectionate as the "non-geek" women is insulting. Simple because a woman understands computer related technology does not instantaneously render her incapable of giving and receiving affection. A "geek" woman is indeed just as capable of this feat, for understanding technology does not render a woman emotionally impotent as the author seems to imply. In fact, a "geek" woman would be more likely to understand her significant other's obsession with sitting in front of a machine for more than twelve hours a day than the "non-geek" woman. "Geek" women also tend to be fairly self-reliant and won't constantly nag at "geek" men to do things for her. While I understand that men appreciate being needed, being needed to help lift something or for company is different from being needed by some women to simply leave the house.
The happy homemaker being described by the author is a rare commodity in this day and age. The woman who enjoys cooking and cleaning and a few moments with her significant other seems to have become a part of '50's television reruns and been replaced by the "modern" female. This woman, while she may enjoy cooking and/or cleaning, also enjoys skiing, working at a competitive job, and a myriad of other activities. Assuming that this '50's female is the end-all solution for every "geek" man is incredibly narrow-sighted on the part of the author.
Comparing a woman's appearance to packaging is unflattering to say the least, and sometimes deceptive. I personally know many sweet, caring women who get dolled up and fawned over by many men, but are still looking for an equally sensitive Mr. Right. Assuming what a person's personality is based on appearance is incredibly shallow and shortsighted. While a good deal can be gleaned from a person's appearance,, narrowing their personality down based solely upon this is a major error on the part of anyone who does this. You might be missing out on "Ms. Right" by doing this.
I don't completely disagree with what the author has stated. In fact, his advice on giving honest compliments and asking questions is right on the mark. The fact that he seems to think that "geek" guys should avoid considering dating a "geek" woman to seemingly avoid some kind of "geek" competition is rather off-base. Why can't you discuss computer hardware with a woman? Who knows, you might possibly discover during the course of discussing this that you have many other interests in common.