I like helping people, but not with what I do for my day job. Ask me to shovel your driveway or help you move or proofread your emails or anything but more of what I’ve already spent all day doing.

I didn’t confuse Beast with Sonic, but I updated because it’s hilarious that someone else did.

No, no, he’s just a little elf prince. Never worked out a day in his life, no sir. Probably a vegetarian.

Don’t underestimate a raccoon’s intelligence. Put a half eaten burger in the world’s most secure safe, he’ll crack that mother and he’ll tell all his friends how he did it.

For you

deleted by creator

Agreed, well placed and executed action or sex scenes can be used to great effect. They are also equally capable of adding nothing but wasted time. My point is that bad action scenes have been wasting plenty of time in movies lately, so a desire for tight films with no fat is definitely not the cause for the comparative dearth of sex scenes.

This is at least as true of action scenes, and it doesn’t stop them from bloating the run time of 90% of the movies coming out today.

Maybe not literally, but the season 3 episode where Discovery arrived in the future went hard on the western vibes. I think they even included swinging saloon doors at one point.

Perhaps http://meninhats.com?

Theory of relativity. Which one is in the mirror is entirely dependent on your frame of reference.

I’m talking about situations where my meaning would become clear if I weren’t interrupted before I finished what I was saying.

It’s fine, though. I’m learning to front-load my main points. Instead of trying to say “Hey, I know we said we’d clean the basement this weekend, but I think it’s more important that I spend that time fixing the car,” and getting interrupted with thoughts about the basement before I’m able to mention the car, I try to say “I’d like to work on the car this weekend. I think the basement can wait.” Takes practice, though.

My partner does this all the time. Unfortunately, they’re often completely wrong about what I was trying to say. Suddenly we’re having two completely different conversations simultaneously.

That footnote points to an uncredited trekplace article from 2004 that itself has no citations. There was never an “original vision" that Klingons have bumpy heads, that was an idea entirely original to TMP.

Anyway, how do we feel about the Star Trek III redesign? In TMP it was one hairless bump that was supposed to represent a spinal column, running all the way from the back over the cranium. TSFS and onward, suddenly it was a flatter, wider set of ridges that was localized only to the forehead, with a full head of hair behind it. For some reason I’m always seeing people act like those are the same design, but to me the differences are glaringly obvious.

TV and movie productions are collaborative efforts undertaken by a huge number of creative people, and I don’t think any of them make their decisions for no reason. The “original creator” of the Klingons was Gene L. Coon, who had nothing to do with their portrayal in TMP.

Who wanted a visual reboot of the Klingons?

Gene Roddenberry, I guess. IMO the guy really fell off when he turned Trek into a saturday morning cartoon show. But yeah, sweaty orc is right, just look at these monstrosities:

deleted by creator

Yeah, I’m facetiously comparing the 1979 arguments over bumpy headed Klingons to the 2017 arguments over cone headed Klingons. What’s “new” keeps on changing, but the arguments about it stay eerily familiar.

NuTrek started when they did a full visual reboot, including completely changing the look of the Klingons: TMP.

Then it got worse, when they followed that up with a grimdark shoot-em-up that felt nothing like Trek. These people aren’t even fans of the show!

Thinks she’s Sisko, but she’s Kai Winn.