Regardless of whether Whedon will direct it, i disagree that the studio would not make the film based on Robert Downey, Jr. + his potential salary requirements
a) Obviously, the Avengers movie had been given some thought before, as they included the Nick Fury cameo in the first picture - and have laid out a timeline for the Hulk, Thor and Captain America pictures - i've seen it on imdb since - well since iron Man was released. Furthermore, with potential franchise pictures like Iron Man, the contract will usually include holding the actor for sequels, in this case, the Avengers movie may have been included.
b) Downey was making yet-another-comeback when he got hired for Iron Man. It may not have cost the studio too much (relatively speaking) to tie him down to a multi-picture deal.
c) I disagree that the franchise is risky. Even if the Hulk underperformed, Iron Man has HUGE buzz. I think it would take Thor and Captain America to tank for the movie to be pulled, otherwise, the script will be written to emphasize the money makers and scale-back the bombs.
d) as for hanging in limbo. the thing to remember here is that Marvel was a major producer for the Iron Man film, and they moved into film production over licensing as a way to gain greater control over the brand. Marvel has an entire Universe of characters, but when Spiderman is a property at Sony and Daredevil (quality-aside) isn't, then it becomes nigh impossible to even acknowledge the other superhero, even though they both live in the Marvel Universe "New York". Marvel is going to want to homogenize their universe, there are too many potential franchise tie-ins to let loose. The aren't a traditional studio in that they are looking for the next English Patient or Benjamin Button. They have 60 yrs of IP to bring to film, and it behooves them to work it, both because superheroes still bring in the money and because it helps (re)expose people to comic books, still their main line of work.
My pet theory is that the Avengers movie was the starting board and then someone said, "Hey wait, let's do an origin pic about each of the heros and we'll make 5 times the money" Plus that streamlines the Avengers. The audience will be familiar with the heroes, and they can get straight into the story.
I am left handed and my first thought was to flip it, with the controller in my left and analog stick in my right. Intuitively it seems natural to me that way... esp. with the examples that they give, e.g. swinging a sword, being things that I'd do left handed, not right.
See, SCO is trying to convince me to buy something they don't own, whereas UberGeeks is trying to convince me that a production flaw is, in fact, a totally awesome feature that deserves an inflated price.
I am selling a premium 20" monitor that will not turn on.
For $799.99 you can have the ultimate in distraction free typing. after a few weeks you will intuitively know where on the screen the cursor is and your speed will increase at least 100%. Plus, without those distracting Graphics, you will be able to focus on kicking ass when gaming.
Order today, and I will throw in a Dolby 7.1 certified speakers that have no jack!
..light sabers were powered by a plasma power cell in the hilt. The 'blade' is composed entirely of plasma, with the frequency of the electronics controlling the plasma dictating the blade color.
lightsabers are given their color by the type of crystal installed. the crystal acts to focus the beam. As the mythos goes, a jedi uses the force to align the crystal. here is the entry from the starwars database http://www.starwars.com/databank/technology/lights aber/?id=eu
And the whole faster than light travel thing.... Didn't some french researchers prove that warp drive (ala Star Trek style) was possible just a couple years back? Haven't scientists just lately made light travel at speeds faster than light in a lab (in the USA I believe)? If it's impossible, then did all these researchers lie?
Yes researchers have made light go faster (and slower) than c...the problem is that they have made light do that, not anything of mass.
I would say it's possible that people tend to write in absolutes, using "never", "impossible", "worst", etc. as it will, in most cases, make the tone of the article stronger and might even strengthen the voice of the author...making it seem, i believe, that the author is speaking with more authority. Conditionalizing everything, will, probably, make the argument seem a little wishy-washy.
of course, this will never stop a good journalist from saying "just as i predicted" when the "impossible" invention is available at wal-mart.
if you were reading the above posts you came across the phrase, "there was variation in the population" this is a handy way of saying mutations occur. some of these mutations are bad, e.g. Down's Syndrome or Spina Bifida. they are not advantageous to the survival of the species, and those individuals for whom the mutation occurs will most likely not procreate to further that mutation.
some mutations are neither advantageous of disadvantageous...for example, left-handedness doesn't really have an impact on our survivability as a species. and so the mutation occurs about 10% of the time.
now let's say small multicelled animal, maybe similar to a hydra, in its procreative stage undrgoes a mutation. this mutation allows for one of its cells to interact, on the molecular level with an amino acid called opsin. opsin gives that cell the ability to detect light/dark patterns. Perhaps this gives the animal a better chance at survival, identifying predators and fleeing. Because it increases the animals chance for survival, the animal has greater success in successive generations, and the light/dark mutation becomes dominant.
from there, please refer to the website for the rest of the story.
um...there was variation in the population, by chance "plagiarism" became "plagerism". I think the odds are stacked against it of surviving to the next generation. With its natural predator "spellchecker", "plagerism" is most likely, an evolutionary dead-end.
Yeah, unfortunately you will not find agreement in the scientific community that this is actual proof, only a nice story that sounds plausible!!!
Not find agreement? Ok, yes, not 100% agreement, but there will always be dissenters out there... however, don't make it sound like there is is questioned support for Evolution. I direct you here to Project Steve (in honor of Steven Jay Gould) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the _list_2_16_2003.asp . This is a list of 540 scientists named Steve (or variants of) who support evolution. (there's a FAQ for what the number represents) Basically it is a response to the claims of ID proponents that Evolution is going through some great debate in the scientific community. It is not. There is huge majority of evolution supporters in the scientific community.
When I studied Physics in college I had to build a math model of a 10 pole system, the math model worked!!! Experimentally I could only prove a dipole system that actually refuted the 10 pole system!!!
when you built the math model in physics, was there evidence of a 5,6, and 7 pole model? feh. nevermind. See, this is my problem. Evolution necessarily doesn't reufte ID, ID doesn't necessarily refute evolution, they can and should be mutually exclusive things. Evolution is concerned with how an organism changes in reaction to its environment to ensure its survival over time. ID is concerned with how that organism came to be in that environment. You wanna believe that God or Aliens put us here, fine...but he/they did so in a way that took millions of years to shape and refine.
A theory does not make truth, you need evidence to back it up, and evolution dose not only not have evidence it is built on a house of cards!!!
yes, a theory doesn't make truth, because science isn't democracy...i never claimed that evolution is truth, it's just the best theory to fit the facts. Much more so than ID. But, i'm open to being proven wrong. Please examine this list and let me know which cards I can take out of my deck http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There is a big difference between science fiction and science fact!!!
I completely agree.
offhand, and seriously, what would it take for you to see things the evolutionists way? what evidence would you need to be presented with...or are you ID all the way?
Ah. Good point. Here's food for thought. Say we developed a new bacterial life form to terraform a planet. Then we destroyed ourselves, but hundreds of millions of years later the bacteria evolved to a level of intellegence.
Would the correct reason for the beginning of life on the planet be considered "natural" or super-natural"?
Ah, but would the process that allowed them to exceed their designed purpose (terraforming) and acquire sentience be evolution? because, if we didn't plan on them becoming more than little terraformers it can't be ID. It goes back to the most sacred of all evolutionary statments, "There was variation in the population." by chance, a trait changes. does the trait increase survivability? If Yes, then reinforce trait through successive generations. If no, then the trait dies out. For your terraformers to become intelligent doesn't mean we intended it.
this only reinforces my belief that ID should not be taught along side evolution. they are two different things. look, even if we were designed to be humans, it seems that there was a long and craggy road up from primate to proto-human to human, that the fossil record (or, hard evidence) supports. We became what we are from something else, and that process is called evolution. To believe that god, spacemen or magic put us here requires faith...because they left no facts...and faith is not science.
Which was a shame, because science fiction writing was incredibly fertile at the time, with writers like Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke creating so many different kinds of excellent science fiction that no one reader could keep track of it all.
Harlan Ellison was the writer of "City On the Edge of Forever" one of the best episodes of the original series...it also won a hugo in 1968.
Star Trek was being written by talented SF writers and was a draw for them. OK, in the third season, when impending cancellation was upon them, not so much. But, there were fine examples of strong SF writing/writers in there.
Although my entry into video gaming was through RPGs, specifically Wizardry and the Bard's Tale series, the game i most remember for making my jaw hang open was Mechwarrior 2. the graphics for the time, the soundtrack, the totally customizable chassis. Man, I would just play for hours on end. It hadn't really occured to me until then what gaming was capable of. The immersive experience.
Sure, celebrity may be marketing, but you have to have something to market to the people. and the throngs of proles who worship these people because of their status are the same proles who worshipped the popular kids in high school because of their status. Celebrity is 90% popularity, to say so otherwise is to be naive.
Think about it, Why is Paris Hilton a celebrity? What did she do? What positive contribution to society has she made that should garner her the status that she has? None. she is not even a very good actress...except that she has a ton of money and she looks good in front of the camera...and people like that. Beauty and money made her popular and popularity made her a star. And even if you and i, as smart as we are, recognize that she is as dumb as a box of hair, she is still propped up on society's plinth because of beauty and money.
and yes, we know nothing about the 300 lb. guy on the subway. and you are right, he could be a leader of a multi-billion dollar business...but why did the author single him out? Why not make the comparison between Paris Hilton and the cute boy in the subway, or the guy in the business suit? Because in our society, despite the fact that fully 30% of adults are obese, we see skinny as beautiful and fat as not. In American culture fat = ugly = unpopular. Whether or not that is right is tangential to the fact that it is how it is shown to us through the media, marketed to us by the advertisers and perceived by the majority of the people.
By the way, I was a little put off at being labled as someone who perpetuates the stereotype. let me make myself clear, I don't like the stereotype (hell, I was, am, and will continue to be put off by social situations. I've never been popular, i feel it acutely and don't like the feeling) and I wish it was different...but I don't blind myself to the truth of the matter either. I know I have caught myself comparing myself to another person and I don't like it when i do it...and yet it's what i am...what we are. we are a social animal and we are born with the need for hierarchy. We want to find a group that we belong with and friends that we can like and trust and trust us back and to do that we must be ready and willng to exclude people...sometimes on the basis of stupid things, like physical features. it's ugly and i think it is wrong. But for nature, it's simple. We can't be everyones friend. our brains won't allow it. Our biological rolodex allows for about 150 people that we can be close too. Beyond that, it's too much.
which is why...to go back to the article, I disagree with the premise. A sony PSP will not make a person popular in any meaningful way. It may make a person feel popular in the short term, but in reality it is the PSP which is popular, the owner is just carrying it around.
actually I used "popular and outcasts" vis a vis the author of the article and her example of Paris Hilton and the 300 lb. guy on the subway.
And sadly, yes, i believe the whole popular vs. unpopular stuggle extends post high-school. Not in the same way (no lockers to shove us into, but velvet ropes to keep us out), and not to the same magnitude...but certainly there are similar barriers to popular social acceptance, e.g. Money, Beauty, etc. that make it hard to break in if you lack those traits. Because that's the way the world works. Who gets into the trendy manhattan club - Linus Torvalds or Lebron James? Who gets more autograph requests, Steve Jobs or Matt Damon?
The Upside to this is that high school is a small pond type of place. as you get older I think you have the opportunity to meet more people whose worldview syncs to yours and thus can have a better pool of contacts to draw from. Age becomes less of a barrier to friendships and so does gender. And yes, people understand that there are different people in the world and become, to a degree, more mature...but i think we are pretty hardwired to be attracted to people like ourselves, with clique jumping being an exception rather than the rule.
what is the viability of startubg a DVD mail service right now? Are they trying to build a client base for the inevitble switch to streaming, which granted is still a few years off, or just trying to get in and steal a bit of market share while they can.
hmm. it reminds me of back in 2001, when i worked for an internet kiosk company. we all knew that wireless tech was hitting the market and that it basically spelled doom for the company, but the higher ups hoped to make as much as they could and (hopefully) sell the company off to a major player before wireless came to fruition...the company was gone within 2 years.
Gaming may be more and more an accepted thing to do by the populace, but I'm still gonna bet that the popular people and the outcasts aren't going to become blood brothers because they can both purchase a PSP. People are who they are and a piece of technology isn't going to make them be seen any different by the people around them. Nor will technological accessories. Sure, they may get more attention...but the attention is not about them, but about what they have with them...and when, invariably, the PSP grows stale, then so, most likely will interest in the person.
Besides, people are still going to hang out with who they are comfortable with, their own friends, whether they be the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads - and they will be happy with that.
I totally I agree with you...and also think you've hit on it. I just think that there are somethings that cannot be reasonably adapted to a new locale without changing some fundamental part of what the original was about, e.g. Harry Potter hailing from Glencoe, IL. or Blanche DuBois taking a bus over to Brixton.
absolutely. it's not like you could do this in reverse...say, Huck Finn set on the River Medway & starring Rupert Grint.
But as long as studios continue to believe that Americans will only pay to see other Americans, this will continue to happen.
Why the decision to go with an almost totally American leading cast)? Other big book to movie adaptations (Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings) did outstanding with a fully british, and very mixed (respectively) cast. Was this by design to win over American audiences, or studio pressure, or just because they were the best auditioned actors these right roles? and also, were they the 1st choice for the roles.
NOTE: I love Sam Rockwell, Mos Def and Zooey Deschanel, so these are not to be taken critically.
Slashdot Mirror
If you asked me that when we here dating i would say no. Now, however...
I lost my girlfriend at a bar, can you send me to the Bunny Ranch?
Regardless of whether Whedon will direct it, i disagree that the studio would not make the film based on Robert Downey, Jr. + his potential salary requirements
a) Obviously, the Avengers movie had been given some thought before, as they included the Nick Fury cameo in the first picture - and have laid out a timeline for the Hulk, Thor and Captain America pictures - i've seen it on imdb since - well since iron Man was released. Furthermore, with potential franchise pictures like Iron Man, the contract will usually include holding the actor for sequels, in this case, the Avengers movie may have been included.
b) Downey was making yet-another-comeback when he got hired for Iron Man. It may not have cost the studio too much (relatively speaking) to tie him down to a multi-picture deal.
c) I disagree that the franchise is risky. Even if the Hulk underperformed, Iron Man has HUGE buzz. I think it would take Thor and Captain America to tank for the movie to be pulled, otherwise, the script will be written to emphasize the money makers and scale-back the bombs.
d) as for hanging in limbo. the thing to remember here is that Marvel was a major producer for the Iron Man film, and they moved into film production over licensing as a way to gain greater control over the brand. Marvel has an entire Universe of characters, but when Spiderman is a property at Sony and Daredevil (quality-aside) isn't, then it becomes nigh impossible to even acknowledge the other superhero, even though they both live in the Marvel Universe "New York". Marvel is going to want to homogenize their universe, there are too many potential franchise tie-ins to let loose. The aren't a traditional studio in that they are looking for the next English Patient or Benjamin Button. They have 60 yrs of IP to bring to film, and it behooves them to work it, both because superheroes still bring in the money and because it helps (re)expose people to comic books, still their main line of work.
My pet theory is that the Avengers movie was the starting board and then someone said, "Hey wait, let's do an origin pic about each of the heros and we'll make 5 times the money" Plus that streamlines the Avengers. The audience will be familiar with the heroes, and they can get straight into the story.
I am left handed and my first thought was to flip it, with the controller in my left and analog stick in my right. Intuitively it seems natural to me that way... esp. with the examples that they give, e.g. swinging a sword, being things that I'd do left handed, not right.
See, SCO is trying to convince me to buy something they don't own, whereas UberGeeks is trying to convince me that a production flaw is, in fact, a totally awesome feature that deserves an inflated price.
I hope this helps with the joke.
For $799.99 you can have the ultimate in distraction free typing. after a few weeks you will intuitively know where on the screen the cursor is and your speed will increase at least 100%. Plus, without those distracting Graphics, you will be able to focus on kicking ass when gaming.
Order today, and I will throw in a Dolby 7.1 certified speakers that have no jack!
lightsabers are given their color by the type of crystal installed. the crystal acts to focus the beam. As the mythos goes, a jedi uses the force to align the crystal. here is the entry from the starwars database http://www.starwars.com/databank/technology/lights aber/?id=eu
Yes researchers have made light go faster (and slower) than c...the problem is that they have made light do that, not anything of mass.
I would say it's possible that people tend to write in absolutes, using "never", "impossible", "worst", etc. as it will, in most cases, make the tone of the article stronger and might even strengthen the voice of the author...making it seem, i believe, that the author is speaking with more authority. Conditionalizing everything, will, probably, make the argument seem a little wishy-washy.
of course, this will never stop a good journalist from saying "just as i predicted" when the "impossible" invention is available at wal-mart.
some mutations are neither advantageous of disadvantageous...for example, left-handedness doesn't really have an impact on our survivability as a species. and so the mutation occurs about 10% of the time.
now let's say small multicelled animal, maybe similar to a hydra, in its procreative stage undrgoes a mutation. this mutation allows for one of its cells to interact, on the molecular level with an amino acid called opsin. opsin gives that cell the ability to detect light/dark patterns. Perhaps this gives the animal a better chance at survival, identifying predators and fleeing. Because it increases the animals chance for survival, the animal has greater success in successive generations, and the light/dark mutation becomes dominant.
from there, please refer to the website for the rest of the story.
um...there was variation in the population, by chance "plagiarism" became "plagerism". I think the odds are stacked against it of surviving to the next generation. With its natural predator "spellchecker", "plagerism" is most likely, an evolutionary dead-end.
Not find agreement? Ok, yes, not 100% agreement, but there will always be dissenters out there... however, don't make it sound like there is is questioned support for Evolution. I direct you here to Project Steve (in honor of Steven Jay Gould) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the _list_2_16_2003.asp . This is a list of 540 scientists named Steve (or variants of) who support evolution. (there's a FAQ for what the number represents) Basically it is a response to the claims of ID proponents that Evolution is going through some great debate in the scientific community. It is not. There is huge majority of evolution supporters in the scientific community.
when you built the math model in physics, was there evidence of a 5,6, and 7 pole model? feh. nevermind. See, this is my problem. Evolution necessarily doesn't reufte ID, ID doesn't necessarily refute evolution, they can and should be mutually exclusive things. Evolution is concerned with how an organism changes in reaction to its environment to ensure its survival over time. ID is concerned with how that organism came to be in that environment. You wanna believe that God or Aliens put us here, fine...but he/they did so in a way that took millions of years to shape and refine.
yes, a theory doesn't make truth, because science isn't democracy...i never claimed that evolution is truth, it's just the best theory to fit the facts. Much more so than ID. But, i'm open to being proven wrong. Please examine this list and let me know which cards I can take out of my deck http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I completely agree.
offhand, and seriously, what would it take for you to see things the evolutionists way? what evidence would you need to be presented with...or are you ID all the way?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/
Ah, but would the process that allowed them to exceed their designed purpose (terraforming) and acquire sentience be evolution? because, if we didn't plan on them becoming more than little terraformers it can't be ID. It goes back to the most sacred of all evolutionary statments, "There was variation in the population." by chance, a trait changes. does the trait increase survivability? If Yes, then reinforce trait through successive generations. If no, then the trait dies out. For your terraformers to become intelligent doesn't mean we intended it.
this only reinforces my belief that ID should not be taught along side evolution. they are two different things. look, even if we were designed to be humans, it seems that there was a long and craggy road up from primate to proto-human to human, that the fossil record (or, hard evidence) supports. We became what we are from something else, and that process is called evolution. To believe that god, spacemen or magic put us here requires faith...because they left no facts...and faith is not science.
Harlan Ellison was the writer of "City On the Edge of Forever" one of the best episodes of the original series...it also won a hugo in 1968.
Star Trek was being written by talented SF writers and was a draw for them. OK, in the third season, when impending cancellation was upon them, not so much. But, there were fine examples of strong SF writing/writers in there.
i guess i'll have to, now. that sounds totally awesome...well...awesome in a totally nerd way. but, hey, that about sums me up.
The MMORPG based on Cohen the Barbarian, Discworld's Greatest Warrior. That would be a truly great game.
Although my entry into video gaming was through RPGs, specifically Wizardry and the Bard's Tale series, the game i most remember for making my jaw hang open was Mechwarrior 2. the graphics for the time, the soundtrack, the totally customizable chassis. Man, I would just play for hours on end. It hadn't really occured to me until then what gaming was capable of. The immersive experience.
Think about it, Why is Paris Hilton a celebrity? What did she do? What positive contribution to society has she made that should garner her the status that she has? None. she is not even a very good actress...except that she has a ton of money and she looks good in front of the camera...and people like that. Beauty and money made her popular and popularity made her a star. And even if you and i, as smart as we are, recognize that she is as dumb as a box of hair, she is still propped up on society's plinth because of beauty and money.
and yes, we know nothing about the 300 lb. guy on the subway. and you are right, he could be a leader of a multi-billion dollar business...but why did the author single him out? Why not make the comparison between Paris Hilton and the cute boy in the subway, or the guy in the business suit? Because in our society, despite the fact that fully 30% of adults are obese, we see skinny as beautiful and fat as not. In American culture fat = ugly = unpopular. Whether or not that is right is tangential to the fact that it is how it is shown to us through the media, marketed to us by the advertisers and perceived by the majority of the people.
By the way, I was a little put off at being labled as someone who perpetuates the stereotype. let me make myself clear, I don't like the stereotype (hell, I was, am, and will continue to be put off by social situations. I've never been popular, i feel it acutely and don't like the feeling) and I wish it was different...but I don't blind myself to the truth of the matter either. I know I have caught myself comparing myself to another person and I don't like it when i do it...and yet it's what i am...what we are. we are a social animal and we are born with the need for hierarchy. We want to find a group that we belong with and friends that we can like and trust and trust us back and to do that we must be ready and willng to exclude people...sometimes on the basis of stupid things, like physical features. it's ugly and i think it is wrong. But for nature, it's simple. We can't be everyones friend. our brains won't allow it. Our biological rolodex allows for about 150 people that we can be close too. Beyond that, it's too much.
which is why...to go back to the article, I disagree with the premise. A sony PSP will not make a person popular in any meaningful way. It may make a person feel popular in the short term, but in reality it is the PSP which is popular, the owner is just carrying it around.
And sadly, yes, i believe the whole popular vs. unpopular stuggle extends post high-school. Not in the same way (no lockers to shove us into, but velvet ropes to keep us out), and not to the same magnitude...but certainly there are similar barriers to popular social acceptance, e.g. Money, Beauty, etc. that make it hard to break in if you lack those traits. Because that's the way the world works. Who gets into the trendy manhattan club - Linus Torvalds or Lebron James? Who gets more autograph requests, Steve Jobs or Matt Damon?
The Upside to this is that high school is a small pond type of place. as you get older I think you have the opportunity to meet more people whose worldview syncs to yours and thus can have a better pool of contacts to draw from. Age becomes less of a barrier to friendships and so does gender. And yes, people understand that there are different people in the world and become, to a degree, more mature...but i think we are pretty hardwired to be attracted to people like ourselves, with clique jumping being an exception rather than the rule.
what is the viability of startubg a DVD mail service right now? Are they trying to build a client base for the inevitble switch to streaming, which granted is still a few years off, or just trying to get in and steal a bit of market share while they can. hmm. it reminds me of back in 2001, when i worked for an internet kiosk company. we all knew that wireless tech was hitting the market and that it basically spelled doom for the company, but the higher ups hoped to make as much as they could and (hopefully) sell the company off to a major player before wireless came to fruition...the company was gone within 2 years.
Gaming may be more and more an accepted thing to do by the populace, but I'm still gonna bet that the popular people and the outcasts aren't going to become blood brothers because they can both purchase a PSP. People are who they are and a piece of technology isn't going to make them be seen any different by the people around them. Nor will technological accessories. Sure, they may get more attention...but the attention is not about them, but about what they have with them...and when, invariably, the PSP grows stale, then so, most likely will interest in the person. Besides, people are still going to hang out with who they are comfortable with, their own friends, whether they be the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads - and they will be happy with that.
I totally I agree with you...and also think you've hit on it. I just think that there are somethings that cannot be reasonably adapted to a new locale without changing some fundamental part of what the original was about, e.g. Harry Potter hailing from Glencoe, IL. or Blanche DuBois taking a bus over to Brixton.
absolutely. it's not like you could do this in reverse...say, Huck Finn set on the River Medway & starring Rupert Grint. But as long as studios continue to believe that Americans will only pay to see other Americans, this will continue to happen.
Yes, but nobody would write a joke in Base 13. It just isn't funny.
Why the decision to go with an almost totally American leading cast)? Other big book to movie adaptations (Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings) did outstanding with a fully british, and very mixed (respectively) cast. Was this by design to win over American audiences, or studio pressure, or just because they were the best auditioned actors these right roles? and also, were they the 1st choice for the roles. NOTE: I love Sam Rockwell, Mos Def and Zooey Deschanel, so these are not to be taken critically.
But if Star Trek Loses then Joan of Arcadia Wins!