ThirdGen

Give Ebola a chance.

The names on that list are an excellent indication of how there are too few personality categories to the test.

Especially with human figures. Pick a celebrity. Look at their face. Try to figure out what plastic surgery they've had done. Especially if they haven't had any. When you look closely at a feature, you can perceive it as "off" in some way. Seriously, check out Alanis Morissette's eyes. That and the nagging feeling that you didn't draw it well enough are just minor brain weasels.

The last log entry read, "Nearing lightspeed now. Our limbs are spaghettifying first."

Definitely, but it was hard to be sure in an episode that started with everything being off and fishy.

The Lying Detective - best episode yet.

La La Land is a great time - you should check it out.

Usually 3-5 year periods have enough in common that I can think of my life in chapters, or like "[name of album] era"s for bands.

The director treats the story with the same reverence as the last movie he shot with Fassbender. Which was fine before, when the story was literal Shakespeare.

The fleet already reacted to realizing an operation was already in progress. Mothma could have ordered it and maintained deniability, since she would be going around the mostly defeatist council.

It was set up earlier that part of the ethos of the really hardline Rebels is that if someone is slowing your escape, let them die. That's messed up to us, but it's an ethic that comes out of very immediate, desperate struggle for survival. Forest Whitaker's character was utterly devoted to the destruction of the Empire. He accepted it in an almost monk-like way. As for the "everyone dies" aspect, the suicide mission subgenre of war movie hasn't been as prominent as it used to be. Dirty Dozen, 13 Assassins, that sort of thing. Constantly giving people movies showing war as a situation where the good guys win gives people a distorted view of war. The ethics get murky and purpose-specific. It's why we should be trying to avoid it. Here's where the formula really stuck out. As soon as a character was no longer needed to get the plans in Leia's hands, they died. In a couple places in the finale, this was glaringly obvious. As for the Tarkin CG, it's extremely clear they got motion capture of an actor's body, but didn't mocap the face. What they went for here was animated like a game character. It wasn't even an imitation of Peter Cushing's performance from '77. Cushing's face in that is remarkably direct. He looks right at what he's doing. He has a military and slightly aristocratic air about him. But for some reason they gave the CG Tarkin constant head bobs and eye moves during his lines. It was like an Andy Serkis character. Andy Serkis is great and all, but his mocap acting style always made sure his head movements were broad enough for the tracking of the time to pick up. It's good for certain types of characters, but not all. His appearance was also balder and more skull-like than the original. They went overboard on what they thought was right for the modern style. Just like Vader's pun. He, uhh... doesn't speak that way. I could chalk up the different, more limber movements to Vader having just been rejuvenated by the tank he floated in. We never saw him do that in the original trilogy. Overall, I liked this movie a lot. It was surprisingly realistic in portraying power dynamics within a rebellion. The old movies presented them as a smaller good-guy military, but here we have hardliners, defeatists, infighting, and wildcat actions done without approval. That was the one thing I would change about the storyline. I'd have Mon Mothma take Jin aside and tell her she can't authorize a big show of force, but she can send in a small, stealthy team without letting the council know.

People keep writing that what it stands for is a surprise, but also most opinions I've seen are that the show is garbage. This kind of situation is why I look for spoilers online. I want to know if something's just going to be a big pointless mess.

This is something that frustrates me about the family-as-a-total-unit way of doing things. There are always some you like more than others, but they're all interconnected and in the same place at the same time, or in random combinations. It's like the good ones are always a lure. I've reached the point where I've been out on my own long enough that it's hit me that the multitude of ways people interact and socialize around me are the way normal life actually is, and the social rituals, forced "friendships," and regular trotting out of each other as entertainment are very insular and in the service of the family members at whose pleasure everyone else participates. This might sound bitter or even bizarre, but it's the place where I am now.

Makes sense. They're both the same word in Latin.

If Kennedy had gone two terms, or possibly even if he'd completed one term, he'd be known as "the Vietnam guy" instead of Johnson.

*obligatory note that nobody notices the same of Bill and that he will not have nearly the outpouring of tributes Leonard did*

Yes. Twice.

We can guess your age and weight from which lines of the Cheers theme you pick from a list!

Meyers-Briggs, the OCEAN model, and the Enneagram of Personality put together should give you a nice, specific personality profile. And maybe throw in Political Compass for good measure. Oh, and Belief-O-Matic. Edit: I'm actually not joking with this. You will learn stuff about yourself.

I'm way more political and sweary.

Natascha McElhone.

Merry mas!

The crooner style must have seemed so intimate and personal when it was new (because early microphones absolutely needed you to belt a song out), but it's so mannered and "parent/grandparent music"-ish that it's hard to take any emotional expression in them as genuine. For example:

Batman Forever