>>But then, I love the search for the hidden meaning in the inconsistencies :). I mean, it's fun reading what people who do that write.
>
>Inconsistencies? I found several I didn't even mention.

And yet the real fans will find deeper meaning in them :).

OK, I'm also guilty as charged - I've been thinking for weeks when I read 1984, trying to find a flaw. And I did find just one half-flaw, not quite sure it would ever be enough to spell doom to the system. I was 18 then.

>You've got a point, but John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart got very dirty and dusty in those great Westerns.

Still, they were all too neat... until Sergio Leone came along. Maybe that's what we'd need, spaghetti SF with Hollywood effects.

>>So did Terminator. So what's new. When would cliches wear out if they weren't repeated?
>
>Terminator was a robot. This guy is a what??

A victim of cliche-minded script writers just the same.

>>Speaking of today's Hollywood - I saw the so-called "Hitchhikers' guide" movie, ...
>I haven't seen the movie as I enjoy the book too much to ruin it by Hollywood.

Don't bother. Yes, the Heart of Gold looks pretty much like I imagined it, but...
- the doors sigh, quite synthy, they don't speak
- the ship never tries to make proper tea
- the role of towels is never explained
- the explanation of Babel fish doesn't even mention the legendary "God disappears in a puff of logic" bit... censorship?

Just stay with the book... much much better than the sanitized movie.

>Want to see good SF? Rent the "Serenity" episodes on DVD or wait for the movie next September. Or rent Forbidden Planet or The Day the Earth Stood Still.

Saw the latter couple of years ago, have the Forbidden Planet (and remember seeing when I was a kid, probably at between(age,6,9)), and bookmarked the Serenity - thanks for the tip.