hkmaly

There ARE blue flames in swamps. Although, being in swamps, people probably wasn't so eager to check their temperature. Or they checked and didn't returned to tell. And, doesn't alcohol burn blue? That was also something which must've been discovered quite early ... hmmm ... ok, probably not convincingly blue, and it would depend on exact drink. Ice is white and water is green. But, yes, water is CONSIDERED blue, although I'm not sure which water were our ancestors observing to get so solid opinion on that. Also, they must've have nice weather to consider sky blue. Good point. That might actually be the reason - not (just) other stuff, but WE tend to be red when hot and blue when cold. (Also, can't find it now but I remember I was surprised some time ago to find it's not completely universal.)

Sigh. URLs like this are useless. Back, next, http://egscomics.com/comic/tsos-10 Uhhh ... and WHAT is she doing? I mean, is that supposed to mean something? Yes. Even things he don't know Actually, he managed to tell Luke lot of stuff without telling anything secret, that's definitely plus. Well ... it would definitely be fun, but maybe they would prefer to play such game without the time limit of tournament? Luke might also be seeing Sarah's aura and thus is extra nervous because there's yet ANOTHER mage suddenly getting up in his face. Given present company, Luke is literally surrounded by mages. I THINK he needs to concentrate for a bit before seeing auras. Also, Tedd is DIRECTLY BEHIND HER. He would risk being blinded again ... in fact, between Tedd and Grace, he has enough reasons to be nervous without knowing Sarah has magic. Also ... he might sort of assume she has due to her friends ... and he wouldn't be that much wrong, considering the number of friends of main cast who don't have magic going down ... like, Diane is going to get magic soon, leaving who, Charlotte and Sam?

I discovered TMNT thanks to the 87 cartoon, then followed them to the movies, video games, etc. of the early 90s. I was a bit of a die-hard fan of the show, watching it until the very end (although admittedly there was a period during season 7 when I grew bored with it and wound up missing some episodes). My favorite version however was the Archie TMNT Adventures comic, which used the first season of the show as a jumping off point but then went in a very different (and eventually relatively mature) direction. For long time, my options for seeing series was limited to what was just on TV (and it was much less here than in US). Until I discovered internet and quickly downloaded more of what just was in TV - which was, specifically, XMen - first series then comics. I got other interests before I read all I downloaded, actually. If I discovered internet when Transformers or TMNT were on, I might've been fan of that instead ... ... interests including webcomics, which proved more interesting than average XMen issue. Also, I AM able to read whole webcomic. Reading whole XMen? Impossible. (also completionist)

http://egscomics.com/comic/tsos-04 Even good movie could still leave lot to be discussed. At least some kind of movies. The "ok" movies might be worst in this regard ... if there are basically no obvious problems, but there is also nothing really interesting ... meanwhile, StarWars prequels are exact opposite. They have lot of problems, but it could've been great movies otherwise. (Meanwhile, Abrams Star Trek movies could be good movies, but they are not Star Trek. They are barely sci-fi, due to lack of the "sci" part. And Justin loves them for all sort of wrong reasons.) And yes, Sarah, you dated Grace and don't think readers will forget that.

I've never been a huge movie enthusiast. I learn about movies from the trailers played before the handful of movies I see, from commercials that happen show up during the small amount of time I'm watching commercial television, and through pop-culture osmosis. I have absolutely no idea how many movies are being made now, or how many were being made at any previous point in time following the invention of the medium. If you say there are more now than at some previous point, I'm in no position to argue. However I am curious if this is just your impression or if you have numbers. I did looked at numbers for that "number of movies in cinemas". And actually ... there is nice graph on quora. (Remember, if you get overlay on quora, you only need this bookmarklet: javascript:var%20f%20=%20function(){var%20el%20=%20document.querySelector('body');el.className%20=%20el.className.replace(/signup_wall_prevent_scroll/g%20,%20''%20);var%20el%20=%20document.querySelector('.signup_wall_content');while(!el.id%20||%20!el.id.match(/signup_wall_wrapper/))%20el%20=%20el.parentNode;el.parentNode.removeChild(el);};var%20e%20=%20f();) Not sure where Zachary Brown got that graph but I don't see why not believe him. Interesting are also graphs on this page on Stephen Follows, according to which the number of Hollywood studio wide releases remains roughly same, but number of other releases goes up. So yes it seems it mostly goes up ... and that's all just movies. I'm sure if you look at TV series ... well, the number of channels goes up and they all seems full, don't they? I had assumed they were making the Marvel movies instead of making other non-Marvel movies, so the over-all number of movies being made stayed the same. But again, I'm completely uninformed in the matter. Not sure if specific studio is making more movies. More likely, the number of studios goes up.

Back when Thomas Edison made all the movies? For example. But I think even Lumiere brothers didn't made so many of them ... in fact, I would suspect that you could manage to see all movies up until first world war. Around 1920, there was about 1000 movies made YEARLY, and I suspect their average lengths were below two hours. ... although ... it's true that the number of movies released at cinemas (in, say, US, as I don't think the number is counting India and China) is still below thousand per year. It's the TV and videos/DVD which raises the number.

Obvious and audible to whom? (Trying to imagine how would someone manage to make "click" noise not audible to humans ... ) The item exchanges BREAST SIZE (assuming it's the same item as in previous sketchbook). That considerably limits list of potential users. On Earth, just mammals have breasts, and humans are quite specific in how big they are even when not lactating. The artifact being scales in first place is anther point that the creators of it thinks in similar ways as we do ; you can argue that form of scales follows their function, but these are not ACTUAL scales ... aaand you can similarly argue that those pictograms would "follow function", that is be understandable simply because they would depict something which must look similar because they would otherwise not work. Aaand, the size of scales matches human size. We are not putting smell-base warnings, which would be likely chosen method for Canine. As long as we limit ourselves to visual symbols, I would still say there is quite low number of things we label in way which would make harder to understand for Felines and Canine, assume they would evolve bigger intelligence. Of course, not counting things which would be already confusing for other humans. Using green for safe and red for danger, for example, is understandable for everyone with red blood who is not red-green color blind (... which dogs are ...) but using red for hot and blue for cold is pretty arbitrary, not universal for all humans and direct opposite to the energy of those colors. More different species like the cheela from Dragon's Egg, medusas from Jupiter or Saturn's Rukhs would be another case, but, again, they are unlikely to use scales like this.

Yeah, if you count stuff like this I suppose Star Trek spawns at least few dozens. If you add fanworks, hundreds.

Well, if you count an officially licensed product and a fan creation as part of the same continuity... While I enjoy a lot of fan works, I usually separate them in my head from the originals. I'm more flexible. In this case, it's OBVIOUS the fan creation is closer to that "deleted" continuity than the new official product. Also, some works spans multiple continuities. Post-reboot Star Trek, for example, would be new, separate continuity no matter it's quality - because there would ALWAYS be option to write something in old continuity, even not counting fact that there already WAS stuff happening in old continuity after the point where Spock supposedly left - I mean, already written stuff. Sometimes with Spock. Sometimes with Data. Also, see Susan's rant about movies being in different continuity ...

He could be on compassionate leave, or using accumulated vacation time, or just be calling in sick. It was pretty clear he was letting things go after losing his mother. I doubt he's used much legitimate sick leave in his time there, or even gone on many vacations, plus I really doubt he's ever used "my mother died" as an excuse before.... It was also Friday. He could be "letting things go" for two days before thinking what to say in school. Although yes, there would be options how he can obtain more time. I sort of think he WAS taking some vacations to be with Noah, but just saying his mother died would be extremely believable and completely explain how he's not in mood to discus details. (Meanwhile, I don't think he would try to lie in his state.)

So the number of movies they're making went up? Or are you saying there are fewer mediocre movies now than there used to be? Yes, I meant that the number of movies they're making went up. Are you suggesting it didn't? I didn't saw all of them but I suspect if they didn't run out of good plots they will soon. I think you're either underestimating the studios, or overestimating the slush pile. I'd say it might be another 1% that has potential to be good movies, but saying there are twice as many better ones is just an expression of scorn for the studios, not a real number. Are you seriously claiming those numbers were expected to be EXACT? Doesn't exactly help in case of topics which just need big budget for special effects. I was counting more-or-less the scripts, actually. Just topic is not that hard if you don't go into details. Although yes, you can make the movie bad even if the script is good. Ugh. How can anyone keep up with all their movies and TV shows, unless it's their full-time job? I watched the first couple X-men, the first Iron Man, the first season of Jessica Jones, but beyond that? Too big an avalanche for this poor pebble. Hence the "number of movies they're making went up". There was time when single person WAS able to keep up with all movies BEING MADE.

Or else "everyone knows" that the order of changes is size first, clothing adjustment second, and so on, but you can always change the order with the dial. There used to be a little rhyme to remember the order. Still badle designed user interface if the dial is not labeled with obvious pictograms and doesn't rotate with audible "click" drawing attention to the fact it moved.

... I though there are just two - the one I saw (several seasons of) and the newer one ... five already? Yes. Also, in case of time-travel based reboots, it makes sense than fans want to see how and why exactly stuff changed. But they barely touch it. I think with that first movie, they wanted to make something which would attract both Star Trek fans and new audience. Later they find out those goals are not compatible, at least in the case of the kind of new audience there were aiming at, and sacrificed the fans. Never saw the comics (although I think I saw few anime episodes) but looking at the description, that was much worse than what Star Trek did, closer to the multiverse catastrophes DC and Marvel are using for rebooting. On the other hand, it was result of lawsuit, Star Trek doesn't have such excuse. (Note: It's funny how mad "scientists" (actually engineers) are so sure their devices work as they plan to despite never trying anything similar ; it's obvious Super Genesis Wave didn't worked as expected, as Archie Sonic Online still exists.)

I'm sure the ratio changed. Sure, the number of good movies (in given period of time) is pretty same as it used to be, but the number of bad ones went up. Exactically (sic). It would have been much better if they hadn't have had to force the characters to be Kirk, Spock, etc. and had instead been a new ship and crew. Avoiding the names Kirk, Spock and Enterprise is still just partial solution. My recommendation would be to not call it Star Trek. When Enterprise the series started, I was complaining that Andromeda Ascendant is closer to Star Trek than Enterprise. It was exaggeration, and they got at least few better episodes later. However I feel with the new Star Trek movies they are really trying to make that true. If not for the Hercules, they would already achieve it.

That's either really badly designed user interface or malevolence, yes.

Yes, some of us found that suspicious at the time. It's a trick J. K. Rowling is especially fond of...."Here's one little thing not yet done but oooh, look at the shiney new development, don't pay any attention to what I've just interrupted!" Why specifically leave off Sarah from the list of those he'd "looked" at? ... which reminds me ... forums from that time are likely completely gone now right ...?

I wonder if Noah is aware of Sarah's visiting his dad. ( :-D ) It does seem to be what inspired Adrian to finally clean up and shave.... Uuuh, I think Raven is professional enough to clean up and shave before going to school. Or at least put on illusion of that.

Um, show me where I ever even implied that the studios are infallible? Does the term "pretty good" now equal "perfect" and no one told me? (It's possible, just look at what's happened to "literally"....) All I said was that what we see, however we feel about it, is better than at least 99% of the *other* options the studios had to choose from. It was a comment in how much *worse* they could be doing, not that everything they did do was somehow perfect. A lot of people like to bash anything and everything that's popular, but if you look at the list of the top ten most popular movies, or even the top 100, there are some pretty damn fine movies on that list! The popular taste isn't as bad as the snobs like to think, and I get tired of seeing people bashing things by pointing out they're popular and implying that somehow makes them bad. Show me a studio that made a movie you don't like, and I can pretty much guarantee they've made some movies you would like, too, and that there are also millions of people out there who did like the movie you didn't, because their tastes and experiences and perspective are different from yours. I meant that in those 99% they reject, there is at least 2% which would be better than what they actually do, and another 2% which would be very good but just for very specific demographics (EGS is in this category I believe). Sure, the remaining 95% would be worse, and often lot worse. And, top ten popular movies is not everything with is being done. Sure, this is not case of new StarTrek: it wasn't StarTrek, it wasn't sci-fi, but as an action movie it was quite good, and there is certainly demographics which preferred it that way, making it popular. I'm just not in it. However, there are lot of movies done by even good studios which are VERY bad for ALL demographics. Some are even "direct-to-video" ones. So, like, you can't rely on studios: to prevent seeing bad movie, you need to also look at some independent reviews and filter some movies out based on that. My general policy about adaptations and remakes is that they're a good sign the original has some sort of merit and maybe I should read/see the source material. One of my favorite things is when a book I really liked has an Afterword which goes into what the author's inspirations were! That makes sense, because you can have bad remake of good movie, but you rarely have good remake of bad movie because noone would bother ... or at least it wouldn't be PRESENTED as remake (it can be, like, second attempt to make movie based on same book). Best example of this is Tolkien. Noone even bother to count how many adaptations were before Peter Jacksons: it wasn't presented as their remake, but as another attempt to make movie based on book. And, it is very good idea to read the original. And also to read the afterword - note that only part of that afterword is in the Lord of the Ring books, there is another part called Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth and The History of Middle-earth and ... ok, maybe you don't need to read EVERYTHING ...

We don't. I gave new StarTrek chance with first movie. It got worse. Sure, different doesn't always mean worse, but sometimes it does ; and new StarTrek missed everything which made StarTrek StarTrek. ... on the other hand, those high school versions of Romeo and Julie are crap too.

Not surprised that they can come up with a story that they like much better than the studio's. They are only two individuals, who seem to hve a lot in common when it comes to imagination. The studio has to try to please a lot more people than that. And honsetly, I think they do a pretty good job of producing stuff that's enjoyable to watch. They wade through the slush pile so we don't have to, and if you've ever talked to an editor or publisher about the slush pile, you know how absolutely horrid 99% of it is. Anything that makes it on the screen has to be in the top 1% on a number of peoples' lists. Seriously? Sure, the studios have it hard because they are trying to hit as large demographics as possible, but they are NOT infallible ; they make mistakes. Also, sometimes it's really better to make fantastic movie for narrower demographics than average movie for wider one. It's not just sequels. They rely on imitations much more than they should. And, often they don't know WHY the previous movie was successful and therefore will repeat incorrect elements ...

Actually, I doubt there's anything malevolent about these scales; it seems to me to just be a magical tool doing what it's designed to do. It's not the scales' fault their instruction manual was lost centuries ago. Good point, actually: many cursed items are perceived as cursed just because without manual you don't know what they do OR how to turn it off. Like, that cursed item who turns wielder into eldritch horror: you can transform back by turning THIS bit around ... but noone knows that anymore. It's not cursed, it's just something like carnival mask.

That actually makes sense. I mean, sure, better be careful, but the red marks don't NEED to do anything more deadly than making you fall off and unable to finish the puzzle. ... additionally, it's possible you can't get transformed again for some time limit, forcing Sarah to try. (I know, next comics is already online, I'm deliberately pretending I didn't read it yet.)

http://egscomics.com/egsnp/nanasecraft-19 ... ok, now try the tail? It wouldn't be that good positioned either, but I don't see any other way how to solve this ...

So, her tongue is longer than her hands. Didn't expected that. Also, it's unexpectedly strong. And, yes, she has SWIMSUIT. There totally was hole, so the transformation must've closed it ... on the other hand, it must've transformed her gloves to fit as well. We didn't see them, but during the transformation they slide off and are now somewhere in middle of floor ... ok, I know, they couldn't slide off when STANDING on them, but it might be interesting searching whole room for them. ... what I actually suspect is that she will have them next strip without any indication they were missing. Presumably turned back.

Luke never got a chance to "look" at Sarah that time, he was going to but got sidetracked by Tedd and Grace. Also, Sarah DID had a mark at that time already. She only NOTICED later, but she was almost certainly marked during that evening. Yes, very Grace. Problem is they don't really have any GOOD answers. Like, Luke would like to know who marked him and why, but they can only GUESS it was Pandora ... and I guess they MIGHT tell him it was attempt to give her son better world to live in, but I suspect they still don't know that bit. There usually isn't a lot of responses in the first few hours after the comic is posted; apparently most of the current forumites are busy (at sleep, work, or whatever) at that time. Personally, I'm usually getting ready for bed when the comic posts, and on nights where Dan is late or I need to get to bed earlier than usual I don't get around to reading it until I have some free time the next day. I'm usually getting ready for bed around that time as well, for relatively vague "around". Sometimes I'm still awake when comics goes up, sometimes I'm not, but I definitely sleep two hours later.