<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_1629214</id>
	<title>What SciFi Should Get the Reboot Treatment  Next?</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263237060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Not long ago Wired ran their own list of which SciFi (not SyFy!) shows were <a href="http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/12/sci-fi-tv-reboots/">in need of another go 'round</a> in this era of the reboot.  Well, it looks like many fans <a href="http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/01/readers-picks-sci-fi-tv-reboots">had their own opinions</a> resulting in another list of reboots including everything from Firefly (please?) to The Outer Limits.  Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life, and which ones might actually succeed it getting it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not long ago Wired ran their own list of which SciFi ( not SyFy !
) shows were in need of another go 'round in this era of the reboot .
Well , it looks like many fans had their own opinions resulting in another list of reboots including everything from Firefly ( please ?
) to The Outer Limits .
Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life , and which ones might actually succeed it getting it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not long ago Wired ran their own list of which SciFi (not SyFy!
) shows were in need of another go 'round in this era of the reboot.
Well, it looks like many fans had their own opinions resulting in another list of reboots including everything from Firefly (please?
) to The Outer Limits.
Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life, and which ones might actually succeed it getting it?</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727254</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps because stargate has a properly defined universe while firefly's universe was a mess. Cowboys in space, all the planets orbiting the same star etc etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps because stargate has a properly defined universe while firefly 's universe was a mess .
Cowboys in space , all the planets orbiting the same star etc etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps because stargate has a properly defined universe while firefly's universe was a mess.
Cowboys in space, all the planets orbiting the same star etc etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728060</id>
	<title>Re:Star Blazers</title>
	<author>Liger-Zero</author>
	<datestamp>1263202140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This show is getting rebooted, there are already new episodes in 100 Digital format being made, Youtube has them, no fansubs as of yet. Starblazers was a KICKASS SHOW!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This show is getting rebooted , there are already new episodes in 100 Digital format being made , Youtube has them , no fansubs as of yet .
Starblazers was a KICKASS SHOW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This show is getting rebooted, there are already new episodes in 100 Digital format being made, Youtube has them, no fansubs as of yet.
Starblazers was a KICKASS SHOW!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729660</id>
	<title>Max Headroom</title>
	<author>jzarling</author>
	<datestamp>1263207900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Max Headroom - or rather to world of Max Headroom should be rebooted, and tooled into a new show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Max Headroom - or rather to world of Max Headroom should be rebooted , and tooled into a new show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Max Headroom - or rather to world of Max Headroom should be rebooted, and tooled into a new show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732362</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>psych0munky</author>
	<datestamp>1263223020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember hearing from somewhere (may have been an extra on the special edition DVD) that the Serenity movie was made to try and tie up loose ends and give the series some closure, as Whedon felt that the fans did not deserve the cancellation.

I agree with the parent that the deaths were justified if you keep this point in mind.  I have little doubt that if Firefly was to run the course of "normal" series, we would have seen the same character development that we saw in the movie, and probably more. It is just in two hours that there is a limit to what you can do...if the series were allowed to progress and the cast stuck around, I doubt that Wash and Book would have been killed off so quickly, if at all.

One thing that I have always found disappointing (yet not really...because it was part of the mystique and allure of the character/show), was being able to figure out more about Book.  From his odd credentials (how he was able to get immediate attention in an Alliance Hospital in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0579534/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">"Safe"</a> [imdb.com] and helped get the crew out a few jams in some unexpected ways [<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0579541/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">"War Stories"</a> [imdb.com]]) and knowledge that most "pious" figures would not have or at least not be willing to exercise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember hearing from somewhere ( may have been an extra on the special edition DVD ) that the Serenity movie was made to try and tie up loose ends and give the series some closure , as Whedon felt that the fans did not deserve the cancellation .
I agree with the parent that the deaths were justified if you keep this point in mind .
I have little doubt that if Firefly was to run the course of " normal " series , we would have seen the same character development that we saw in the movie , and probably more .
It is just in two hours that there is a limit to what you can do...if the series were allowed to progress and the cast stuck around , I doubt that Wash and Book would have been killed off so quickly , if at all .
One thing that I have always found disappointing ( yet not really...because it was part of the mystique and allure of the character/show ) , was being able to figure out more about Book .
From his odd credentials ( how he was able to get immediate attention in an Alliance Hospital in " Safe " [ imdb.com ] and helped get the crew out a few jams in some unexpected ways [ " War Stories " [ imdb.com ] ] ) and knowledge that most " pious " figures would not have or at least not be willing to exercise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember hearing from somewhere (may have been an extra on the special edition DVD) that the Serenity movie was made to try and tie up loose ends and give the series some closure, as Whedon felt that the fans did not deserve the cancellation.
I agree with the parent that the deaths were justified if you keep this point in mind.
I have little doubt that if Firefly was to run the course of "normal" series, we would have seen the same character development that we saw in the movie, and probably more.
It is just in two hours that there is a limit to what you can do...if the series were allowed to progress and the cast stuck around, I doubt that Wash and Book would have been killed off so quickly, if at all.
One thing that I have always found disappointing (yet not really...because it was part of the mystique and allure of the character/show), was being able to figure out more about Book.
From his odd credentials (how he was able to get immediate attention in an Alliance Hospital in "Safe" [imdb.com] and helped get the crew out a few jams in some unexpected ways ["War Stories" [imdb.com]]) and knowledge that most "pious" figures would not have or at least not be willing to exercise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729558</id>
	<title>two [would be] great movies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263207540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>soylent green &amp; westworld<br>two of the all time greatest 'movies for a rained out ballgame'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>soylent green &amp; westworldtwo of the all time greatest 'movies for a rained out ballgame'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>soylent green &amp; westworldtwo of the all time greatest 'movies for a rained out ballgame'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729384</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terraformign didn't take? Given that the war was there, and before the war there was a how many years or centuries for the aliance to grow up, grow dispised, grow dispotic, and engender warfare; well the system has been around a mighty long time. Everybody would have knows Miranda (the planet) was habitable long before the need to develop the Pax came about.</p><p>Hell, the firefly class being "good for smuggling" means that there was smuggling, which means that if Miranda (the planet) was ideally terraformed then everybody would have been there, and if it were a teraforming disaster, all the people who didn't want to be where all the people were woudl use it as a base just like they do everything else.</p><p>In the scale of things, having Miranda go unnoticed and discovered the way it was has the credibility of Atlantis. That is, it is as likely as finding out on the news this eventing that a land mass the size of Australia was just "discovered" \_anywhere\_ on the earth, and it had been hidden by the UN because 20 years ago they decided they needed a secret continent of their very own.</p><p>You just cannot hide a planet. And the \_planet\_ was hidden (watch the movie again, look at all that "nothing" in the CGI rendering of the not-the-internet when the discover the planet). yes, planet.</p><p>There just is no excusing that whole planet thing. Hell I came up with a way for the 28 Days Later people to pull off their originally preferred ending (watch the DVD extras) and that was \_easy\_ in that mythos. But outside of Buck Rodgers, circa 1930, you just \_don't\_ get license to hide a whole freaking planet co-orbiting a star occupied by multi-planetary spacefaring society full of smugglers and rebels.</p><p>Now, to be honest, when required to argue the other side in a different context, I took the position that the perturbations of navigation were hidden in the navigation system software. Nobody would have any cause to double-check the computer as long as the easy-to-computer compensations worked and everybody ended up at their destinations.</p><p>But I was defeated by the ten year old with binoculars. There is no way that a planetary mass, habitable and life sustaining at that, let alone one \_surrounded\_ by a cloud of reaver ships has an albedo low enough to hide, or even go unnoticed traversing the night sky of a few dozen planets and moons.</p><p>I love Joss' imagination. His vision is good. Like any bond villian, he needed to find him 5 year old to bounce his evil plan off of before putting it to paper. There is no excuse for Miranda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terraformign did n't take ?
Given that the war was there , and before the war there was a how many years or centuries for the aliance to grow up , grow dispised , grow dispotic , and engender warfare ; well the system has been around a mighty long time .
Everybody would have knows Miranda ( the planet ) was habitable long before the need to develop the Pax came about.Hell , the firefly class being " good for smuggling " means that there was smuggling , which means that if Miranda ( the planet ) was ideally terraformed then everybody would have been there , and if it were a teraforming disaster , all the people who did n't want to be where all the people were woudl use it as a base just like they do everything else.In the scale of things , having Miranda go unnoticed and discovered the way it was has the credibility of Atlantis .
That is , it is as likely as finding out on the news this eventing that a land mass the size of Australia was just " discovered " \ _anywhere \ _ on the earth , and it had been hidden by the UN because 20 years ago they decided they needed a secret continent of their very own.You just can not hide a planet .
And the \ _planet \ _ was hidden ( watch the movie again , look at all that " nothing " in the CGI rendering of the not-the-internet when the discover the planet ) .
yes , planet.There just is no excusing that whole planet thing .
Hell I came up with a way for the 28 Days Later people to pull off their originally preferred ending ( watch the DVD extras ) and that was \ _easy \ _ in that mythos .
But outside of Buck Rodgers , circa 1930 , you just \ _do n't \ _ get license to hide a whole freaking planet co-orbiting a star occupied by multi-planetary spacefaring society full of smugglers and rebels.Now , to be honest , when required to argue the other side in a different context , I took the position that the perturbations of navigation were hidden in the navigation system software .
Nobody would have any cause to double-check the computer as long as the easy-to-computer compensations worked and everybody ended up at their destinations.But I was defeated by the ten year old with binoculars .
There is no way that a planetary mass , habitable and life sustaining at that , let alone one \ _surrounded \ _ by a cloud of reaver ships has an albedo low enough to hide , or even go unnoticed traversing the night sky of a few dozen planets and moons.I love Joss ' imagination .
His vision is good .
Like any bond villian , he needed to find him 5 year old to bounce his evil plan off of before putting it to paper .
There is no excuse for Miranda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terraformign didn't take?
Given that the war was there, and before the war there was a how many years or centuries for the aliance to grow up, grow dispised, grow dispotic, and engender warfare; well the system has been around a mighty long time.
Everybody would have knows Miranda (the planet) was habitable long before the need to develop the Pax came about.Hell, the firefly class being "good for smuggling" means that there was smuggling, which means that if Miranda (the planet) was ideally terraformed then everybody would have been there, and if it were a teraforming disaster, all the people who didn't want to be where all the people were woudl use it as a base just like they do everything else.In the scale of things, having Miranda go unnoticed and discovered the way it was has the credibility of Atlantis.
That is, it is as likely as finding out on the news this eventing that a land mass the size of Australia was just "discovered" \_anywhere\_ on the earth, and it had been hidden by the UN because 20 years ago they decided they needed a secret continent of their very own.You just cannot hide a planet.
And the \_planet\_ was hidden (watch the movie again, look at all that "nothing" in the CGI rendering of the not-the-internet when the discover the planet).
yes, planet.There just is no excusing that whole planet thing.
Hell I came up with a way for the 28 Days Later people to pull off their originally preferred ending (watch the DVD extras) and that was \_easy\_ in that mythos.
But outside of Buck Rodgers, circa 1930, you just \_don't\_ get license to hide a whole freaking planet co-orbiting a star occupied by multi-planetary spacefaring society full of smugglers and rebels.Now, to be honest, when required to argue the other side in a different context, I took the position that the perturbations of navigation were hidden in the navigation system software.
Nobody would have any cause to double-check the computer as long as the easy-to-computer compensations worked and everybody ended up at their destinations.But I was defeated by the ten year old with binoculars.
There is no way that a planetary mass, habitable and life sustaining at that, let alone one \_surrounded\_ by a cloud of reaver ships has an albedo low enough to hide, or even go unnoticed traversing the night sky of a few dozen planets and moons.I love Joss' imagination.
His vision is good.
Like any bond villian, he needed to find him 5 year old to bounce his evil plan off of before putting it to paper.
There is no excuse for Miranda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730896</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1263213480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, when I see a movie, if it's entertaining and perhaps even a little thought-provoking, I don't give two and a half shits if it's a remake, a reboot, or a rip-off. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. Some remakes suck, and some don't. Some original movies suck, and some don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , when I see a movie , if it 's entertaining and perhaps even a little thought-provoking , I do n't give two and a half shits if it 's a remake , a reboot , or a rip-off .
If it 's good , it 's good .
If it 's bad , it 's bad .
Some remakes suck , and some do n't .
Some original movies suck , and some do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, when I see a movie, if it's entertaining and perhaps even a little thought-provoking, I don't give two and a half shits if it's a remake, a reboot, or a rip-off.
If it's good, it's good.
If it's bad, it's bad.
Some remakes suck, and some don't.
Some original movies suck, and some don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728708</id>
	<title>Re:B5: Crusade</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1263204360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gary Cole enjoys a good deal more fame as Lumberg. He was also the voice of Harvey Birdman in the Cartoon Network series, and of various characters on Family Guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gary Cole enjoys a good deal more fame as Lumberg .
He was also the voice of Harvey Birdman in the Cartoon Network series , and of various characters on Family Guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gary Cole enjoys a good deal more fame as Lumberg.
He was also the voice of Harvey Birdman in the Cartoon Network series, and of various characters on Family Guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727288</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1263242880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be happy to see Blake's 7 on DVD, even if it were $100 for the series.  I think the producer think the US is not financially viable.
<p>
I think that characterization is something that many Sci Fi shows do not concentrate on, perhaps because it is not something the masses want, as well as one needs really good actors to pull off.  Paul Darrow did an excelent job.  But then again sometimes you just need to add another pretty woman, in the form of Jacqueline Pearce.
</p><p>
Blake's 7, like Firefly, are wonderful ideas, but it was just hard to make them a series, and keep the actors interested.  We see this on other shows like Moonlighting, where a really esoteric rythm was very difficult to maintain.  Such a rhythm is much more sustainable at 6-12 episodes per seasons/series rather than 18-24.  In fact, I would be quite happy with Dollhouse staying of the air with 12 episode plus an epitaph.
</p><p>
What we had when I was kid, which was great, was the comedies in space.  The wrong people on the wrong ship.  Star Trek made the western in space in the norm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be happy to see Blake 's 7 on DVD , even if it were $ 100 for the series .
I think the producer think the US is not financially viable .
I think that characterization is something that many Sci Fi shows do not concentrate on , perhaps because it is not something the masses want , as well as one needs really good actors to pull off .
Paul Darrow did an excelent job .
But then again sometimes you just need to add another pretty woman , in the form of Jacqueline Pearce .
Blake 's 7 , like Firefly , are wonderful ideas , but it was just hard to make them a series , and keep the actors interested .
We see this on other shows like Moonlighting , where a really esoteric rythm was very difficult to maintain .
Such a rhythm is much more sustainable at 6-12 episodes per seasons/series rather than 18-24 .
In fact , I would be quite happy with Dollhouse staying of the air with 12 episode plus an epitaph .
What we had when I was kid , which was great , was the comedies in space .
The wrong people on the wrong ship .
Star Trek made the western in space in the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be happy to see Blake's 7 on DVD, even if it were $100 for the series.
I think the producer think the US is not financially viable.
I think that characterization is something that many Sci Fi shows do not concentrate on, perhaps because it is not something the masses want, as well as one needs really good actors to pull off.
Paul Darrow did an excelent job.
But then again sometimes you just need to add another pretty woman, in the form of Jacqueline Pearce.
Blake's 7, like Firefly, are wonderful ideas, but it was just hard to make them a series, and keep the actors interested.
We see this on other shows like Moonlighting, where a really esoteric rythm was very difficult to maintain.
Such a rhythm is much more sustainable at 6-12 episodes per seasons/series rather than 18-24.
In fact, I would be quite happy with Dollhouse staying of the air with 12 episode plus an epitaph.
What we had when I was kid, which was great, was the comedies in space.
The wrong people on the wrong ship.
Star Trek made the western in space in the norm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728558</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263203940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.</p></div><p>
Really? Because it seems to me like people have been eating up the sensitive young man bit quite well these days. Let's see here, there was Spock in the new Star Trek, the entire character set of the Twilight series, the tubby kid from the new SGU series (maybe he's gotten better, but for the first have of the season I watched, he spent all his time pining over a girl rather than pursuing her), the supposedly hardcore marine from Avatar that was incapable of functioning with passion or purpose until he met an alien woman that stole his heart, A Christian Bale from the new terminator movie that was more concerned with what was right and wrong and what whether or not he was leading like he was supposed to rather than blowing the shit out of every single robot he saw, and everything else that go in his way (like Arnie from number 2), A Christian Bale in the Dark Night that wanted to whine and cry about a dead Katie Holmes rather than just punch the Joker in the face like we all know Val Kilmer would have done, and a Harry Potter that has taken 5 whole movies just to shoot a friggin' malicious spell at someone (maybe that's how the books went, I don't know, but people sure seem to love a confused and angsty teen boy these days). Oh, and don't even get me started on that God-foresaken tragedy that was the portrayal of Anakin Skywalker in the newest three movies.
<br> <br>
So, while I agree that  Hollywood should try some new material, I must say anything that has a sensitive male subject in it seems to make it perfect for mass consumption these days. I, for one, want Bruce Willis to punch some more aliens in the face while making out with a hot redhead chick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse .
Really ? Because it seems to me like people have been eating up the sensitive young man bit quite well these days .
Let 's see here , there was Spock in the new Star Trek , the entire character set of the Twilight series , the tubby kid from the new SGU series ( maybe he 's gotten better , but for the first have of the season I watched , he spent all his time pining over a girl rather than pursuing her ) , the supposedly hardcore marine from Avatar that was incapable of functioning with passion or purpose until he met an alien woman that stole his heart , A Christian Bale from the new terminator movie that was more concerned with what was right and wrong and what whether or not he was leading like he was supposed to rather than blowing the shit out of every single robot he saw , and everything else that go in his way ( like Arnie from number 2 ) , A Christian Bale in the Dark Night that wanted to whine and cry about a dead Katie Holmes rather than just punch the Joker in the face like we all know Val Kilmer would have done , and a Harry Potter that has taken 5 whole movies just to shoot a friggin ' malicious spell at someone ( maybe that 's how the books went , I do n't know , but people sure seem to love a confused and angsty teen boy these days ) .
Oh , and do n't even get me started on that God-foresaken tragedy that was the portrayal of Anakin Skywalker in the newest three movies .
So , while I agree that Hollywood should try some new material , I must say anything that has a sensitive male subject in it seems to make it perfect for mass consumption these days .
I , for one , want Bruce Willis to punch some more aliens in the face while making out with a hot redhead chick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.
Really? Because it seems to me like people have been eating up the sensitive young man bit quite well these days.
Let's see here, there was Spock in the new Star Trek, the entire character set of the Twilight series, the tubby kid from the new SGU series (maybe he's gotten better, but for the first have of the season I watched, he spent all his time pining over a girl rather than pursuing her), the supposedly hardcore marine from Avatar that was incapable of functioning with passion or purpose until he met an alien woman that stole his heart, A Christian Bale from the new terminator movie that was more concerned with what was right and wrong and what whether or not he was leading like he was supposed to rather than blowing the shit out of every single robot he saw, and everything else that go in his way (like Arnie from number 2), A Christian Bale in the Dark Night that wanted to whine and cry about a dead Katie Holmes rather than just punch the Joker in the face like we all know Val Kilmer would have done, and a Harry Potter that has taken 5 whole movies just to shoot a friggin' malicious spell at someone (maybe that's how the books went, I don't know, but people sure seem to love a confused and angsty teen boy these days).
Oh, and don't even get me started on that God-foresaken tragedy that was the portrayal of Anakin Skywalker in the newest three movies.
So, while I agree that  Hollywood should try some new material, I must say anything that has a sensitive male subject in it seems to make it perfect for mass consumption these days.
I, for one, want Bruce Willis to punch some more aliens in the face while making out with a hot redhead chick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727434</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263243300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bump on Armor, an excellent scifi piece for either a movie or mini-series. And how about remaking Starship Troopers while we're at it and, you know, actually following the book?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bump on Armor , an excellent scifi piece for either a movie or mini-series .
And how about remaking Starship Troopers while we 're at it and , you know , actually following the book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bump on Armor, an excellent scifi piece for either a movie or mini-series.
And how about remaking Starship Troopers while we're at it and, you know, actually following the book?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733398</id>
	<title>Re:Sliders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The show ended for me (or jumped-the-shark, so-to-speak), when they killed off John Rhys-Davies. Until then, it was a good show... sigh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The show ended for me ( or jumped-the-shark , so-to-speak ) , when they killed off John Rhys-Davies .
Until then , it was a good show... sigh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The show ended for me (or jumped-the-shark, so-to-speak), when they killed off John Rhys-Davies.
Until then, it was a good show... sigh...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732096</id>
	<title>Flatland - 3D</title>
	<author>peterofoz</author>
	<datestamp>1263220920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I vote for a 3-d version of Flatland</p><p>http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/</p><p>

Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is an 1884 satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott Abbott. Writing pseudonymously as "a square" [1], Abbott used the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland to offer pointed observations on the social hierarchy of Victorian culture.

</p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vote for a 3-d version of Flatlandhttp : //www.geom.uiuc.edu/ ~ banchoff/Flatland/ Flatland : A Romance of Many Dimensions is an 1884 satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott Abbott .
Writing pseudonymously as " a square " [ 1 ] , Abbott used the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland to offer pointed observations on the social hierarchy of Victorian culture .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vote for a 3-d version of Flatlandhttp://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is an 1884 satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott Abbott.
Writing pseudonymously as "a square" [1], Abbott used the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland to offer pointed observations on the social hierarchy of Victorian culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland [wikipedia.org]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729056</id>
	<title>Greatest American Hero</title>
	<author>uiucgrad</author>
	<datestamp>1263205740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be perfect for a reboot tv series:<br>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081871/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be perfect for a reboot tv series : http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0081871/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be perfect for a reboot tv series:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081871/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735578</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1263302220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The recent film Bright Star was well received (at least here in the UK), and it was all about John Keats...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats , and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse .
The recent film Bright Star was well received ( at least here in the UK ) , and it was all about John Keats.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.
The recent film Bright Star was well received (at least here in the UK), and it was all about John Keats...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730996</id>
	<title>Re:Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No! Not a Reboot for Reboot! We need a season 5. I think it would also be cool to have a movie or mini-season that fleshes out Mainframe before the accident. Most of it was explained, but not enough to really give a feeling of what life was like before Bob and Megabyte showed up and Mr. Matrix got nullified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No !
Not a Reboot for Reboot !
We need a season 5 .
I think it would also be cool to have a movie or mini-season that fleshes out Mainframe before the accident .
Most of it was explained , but not enough to really give a feeling of what life was like before Bob and Megabyte showed up and Mr. Matrix got nullified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No!
Not a Reboot for Reboot!
We need a season 5.
I think it would also be cool to have a movie or mini-season that fleshes out Mainframe before the accident.
Most of it was explained, but not enough to really give a feeling of what life was like before Bob and Megabyte showed up and Mr. Matrix got nullified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727246</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1263242820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get some Heinlein out there, too... do <i>The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress</i> or <i>Starship Troopers</i>.  Or maybe a series off of Scalzi's <i>Old Man's War</i> universe.</p><p>Niven's <i>Draco Tavern</i> collection would be a great seed for a series, as would Clarke's <i>White Hart</i> stores.</p><p>Or even something original (gasp!), as long as the physics are mostly realistic and self-consistent, the acting is good, the effects decent, and any aliens not just dressed-up humans with bits of latex and body paint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get some Heinlein out there , too... do The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress or Starship Troopers .
Or maybe a series off of Scalzi 's Old Man 's War universe.Niven 's Draco Tavern collection would be a great seed for a series , as would Clarke 's White Hart stores.Or even something original ( gasp !
) , as long as the physics are mostly realistic and self-consistent , the acting is good , the effects decent , and any aliens not just dressed-up humans with bits of latex and body paint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get some Heinlein out there, too... do The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress or Starship Troopers.
Or maybe a series off of Scalzi's Old Man's War universe.Niven's Draco Tavern collection would be a great seed for a series, as would Clarke's White Hart stores.Or even something original (gasp!
), as long as the physics are mostly realistic and self-consistent, the acting is good, the effects decent, and any aliens not just dressed-up humans with bits of latex and body paint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734576</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1263290280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about we reboot Hollywood and the media in general so that they can come up with some original ideas. You know, something new and awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we reboot Hollywood and the media in general so that they can come up with some original ideas .
You know , something new and awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we reboot Hollywood and the media in general so that they can come up with some original ideas.
You know, something new and awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727022</id>
	<title>Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>krakelohm</author>
	<datestamp>1263242160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Biddy Biddy Biddy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biddy Biddy Biddy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biddy Biddy Biddy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727468</id>
	<title>Reboot Star Wars without George Lucas</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1263243420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tolerate SW 3-4-5. There's even brilliant moments.<br>(1-2-3 dont even qualify as mediocre Star Wars)</p><p>I suggest re-borrow the good ideas from Stargate, with<br>ascension and telekinesis and so on. Make The Force into<br>real sci-fi, rather then Fantasy/Religion thingy.<br>And make it for grown-ups this time.</p><p>And bring back Jar-Jar for two seconds and drop an 5000kg<br>anvil on him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tolerate SW 3-4-5 .
There 's even brilliant moments .
( 1-2-3 dont even qualify as mediocre Star Wars ) I suggest re-borrow the good ideas from Stargate , withascension and telekinesis and so on .
Make The Force intoreal sci-fi , rather then Fantasy/Religion thingy.And make it for grown-ups this time.And bring back Jar-Jar for two seconds and drop an 5000kganvil on him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tolerate SW 3-4-5.
There's even brilliant moments.
(1-2-3 dont even qualify as mediocre Star Wars)I suggest re-borrow the good ideas from Stargate, withascension and telekinesis and so on.
Make The Force intoreal sci-fi, rather then Fantasy/Religion thingy.And make it for grown-ups this time.And bring back Jar-Jar for two seconds and drop an 5000kganvil on him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728612</id>
	<title>Re:How about Rebooting Reboot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263204120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about a porn version of Tron? Just need to think of a name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about a porn version of Tron ?
Just need to think of a name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about a porn version of Tron?
Just need to think of a name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727048</id>
	<title>Not so much a reboot as a restart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Threshold was one of the best shows that ever got canceled first season. Good scripts and an excellent cast. It even managed to be inventive in a subject that had been done to death. I actually never saw it during it's original run but caught a couple of episodes on scifi channel and wound up buying the whole series. The last episode was a little silly but otherwise it was a solid show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Threshold was one of the best shows that ever got canceled first season .
Good scripts and an excellent cast .
It even managed to be inventive in a subject that had been done to death .
I actually never saw it during it 's original run but caught a couple of episodes on scifi channel and wound up buying the whole series .
The last episode was a little silly but otherwise it was a solid show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Threshold was one of the best shows that ever got canceled first season.
Good scripts and an excellent cast.
It even managed to be inventive in a subject that had been done to death.
I actually never saw it during it's original run but caught a couple of episodes on scifi channel and wound up buying the whole series.
The last episode was a little silly but otherwise it was a solid show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727534</id>
	<title>Quark</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1263200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">Quark</a> [wikipedia.org] That show was brilliant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quark [ wikipedia.org ] That show was brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quark [wikipedia.org] That show was brilliant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729014</id>
	<title>Tripping the Rift</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263205560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original short was hilarious, the tv series was so-so but still funnier than most of what is on today<br>http://www.trippingtherift.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original short was hilarious , the tv series was so-so but still funnier than most of what is on todayhttp : //www.trippingtherift.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original short was hilarious, the tv series was so-so but still funnier than most of what is on todayhttp://www.trippingtherift.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729290</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263206520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One is that it's just a bit too nerdy. I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.</p></div><p>How is that nerdy? That&rsquo;s not nerdy. That&rsquo;s half of the good films out there! I don&rsquo;t know what people you mean, but the society around me is practically void of the retards that are constantly shown as the major opinion on TV and in industry presentations. In fact I call bullshit on it, and say that in reality, the industry has gotten so incompetent that they can not come up with a single idea that can drag you in. So they fall back to big booms, because they still seem to excite people. And then bigger booms, and bigger booms.<br>But give us something truly great, and people will love it, even if it contains no explosions at all. (And ignore that one loud retard trying to be louder than the nine of us who are not dumb enough to be that annoying.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities.</p></div><p>Sorry, but caving to such bullshit rules from delusional is just perverse.<br>To those who say: &ldquo;Oooh, this offends me!&rdquo;, I say: Get over yourself and quit whining. You are not entitled to anything, it does not hurt you. Instead YOU are oppressing US with your bullshit, forcing us into your fucked-up rules. No thanks. I do not need any votes, and I don&rsquo;t need you. if you don&rsquo;t like it, how about you LOOK AWAY!?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One is that it 's just a bit too nerdy .
I mean , one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats , and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.How is that nerdy ?
That    s not nerdy .
That    s half of the good films out there !
I don    t know what people you mean , but the society around me is practically void of the retards that are constantly shown as the major opinion on TV and in industry presentations .
In fact I call bullshit on it , and say that in reality , the industry has gotten so incompetent that they can not come up with a single idea that can drag you in .
So they fall back to big booms , because they still seem to excite people .
And then bigger booms , and bigger booms.But give us something truly great , and people will love it , even if it contains no explosions at all .
( And ignore that one loud retard trying to be louder than the nine of us who are not dumb enough to be that annoying .
) Also , the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities.Sorry , but caving to such bullshit rules from delusional is just perverse.To those who say :    Oooh , this offends me !    , I say : Get over yourself and quit whining .
You are not entitled to anything , it does not hurt you .
Instead YOU are oppressing US with your bullshit , forcing us into your fucked-up rules .
No thanks .
I do not need any votes , and I don    t need you .
if you don    t like it , how about you LOOK AWAY ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One is that it's just a bit too nerdy.
I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.How is that nerdy?
That’s not nerdy.
That’s half of the good films out there!
I don’t know what people you mean, but the society around me is practically void of the retards that are constantly shown as the major opinion on TV and in industry presentations.
In fact I call bullshit on it, and say that in reality, the industry has gotten so incompetent that they can not come up with a single idea that can drag you in.
So they fall back to big booms, because they still seem to excite people.
And then bigger booms, and bigger booms.But give us something truly great, and people will love it, even if it contains no explosions at all.
(And ignore that one loud retard trying to be louder than the nine of us who are not dumb enough to be that annoying.
)Also, the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities.Sorry, but caving to such bullshit rules from delusional is just perverse.To those who say: “Oooh, this offends me!”, I say: Get over yourself and quit whining.
You are not entitled to anything, it does not hurt you.
Instead YOU are oppressing US with your bullshit, forcing us into your fucked-up rules.
No thanks.
I do not need any votes, and I don’t need you.
if you don’t like it, how about you LOOK AWAY!?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728114</id>
	<title>Re:Battlestar; Just the 4th Season</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1263202320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Season 4, last 2 hour episode about 1 hour in</p><p>Adama says Jump, anywhere</p><p>Kara puts in coordinates and hits the button...</p><p>Screen fades to credits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Season 4 , last 2 hour episode about 1 hour inAdama says Jump , anywhereKara puts in coordinates and hits the button...Screen fades to credits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Season 4, last 2 hour episode about 1 hour inAdama says Jump, anywhereKara puts in coordinates and hits the button...Screen fades to credits</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732202</id>
	<title>Re:Star Wars</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1263221760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, I just introduced my 6 year old son to Star Wars.  We just watched Episode 4 and his reaction was mixed.  He loved it during the "fast parts" (space battles, garbage mashers and such) but hated it during the "slow parts" (Han and Luke talking, Luke and Ben talking, pretty much anyone just standing around and talking).</p><p>Of course, he's probably too young to appreciate why the "slow parts" are needed, but it got me to thinking:  What would Star Wars be like if it were recreated today?  Leave Lucas out of the picture (to better cut ties from the previous version) and suppose the studio was just launching it fresh.  I'd guess that someone like Michael Bay would be made the director and some big names would be brought in to play Luke, Han, etc.  I'd also guess that the battle scenes would be doubled in length and the "boring stuff" cut as much as possible.  In short, it'd wind up being just another loud, summer popcorn action flick that would take in millions and then be forgotten until the inevitable sequel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , I just introduced my 6 year old son to Star Wars .
We just watched Episode 4 and his reaction was mixed .
He loved it during the " fast parts " ( space battles , garbage mashers and such ) but hated it during the " slow parts " ( Han and Luke talking , Luke and Ben talking , pretty much anyone just standing around and talking ) .Of course , he 's probably too young to appreciate why the " slow parts " are needed , but it got me to thinking : What would Star Wars be like if it were recreated today ?
Leave Lucas out of the picture ( to better cut ties from the previous version ) and suppose the studio was just launching it fresh .
I 'd guess that someone like Michael Bay would be made the director and some big names would be brought in to play Luke , Han , etc .
I 'd also guess that the battle scenes would be doubled in length and the " boring stuff " cut as much as possible .
In short , it 'd wind up being just another loud , summer popcorn action flick that would take in millions and then be forgotten until the inevitable sequel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, I just introduced my 6 year old son to Star Wars.
We just watched Episode 4 and his reaction was mixed.
He loved it during the "fast parts" (space battles, garbage mashers and such) but hated it during the "slow parts" (Han and Luke talking, Luke and Ben talking, pretty much anyone just standing around and talking).Of course, he's probably too young to appreciate why the "slow parts" are needed, but it got me to thinking:  What would Star Wars be like if it were recreated today?
Leave Lucas out of the picture (to better cut ties from the previous version) and suppose the studio was just launching it fresh.
I'd guess that someone like Michael Bay would be made the director and some big names would be brought in to play Luke, Han, etc.
I'd also guess that the battle scenes would be doubled in length and the "boring stuff" cut as much as possible.
In short, it'd wind up being just another loud, summer popcorn action flick that would take in millions and then be forgotten until the inevitable sequel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729376</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>32771</author>
	<datestamp>1263206820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too.</p><p>No - don't poke fun of this, this is important. They are still fucking up open standards (svg) and have an even less likable guy in power now. What else would you want? Monsanto or AIG have nothing to do with computers so I guess we are stuck with MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The whole " Evil Bill " thing got old too.No - do n't poke fun of this , this is important .
They are still fucking up open standards ( svg ) and have an even less likable guy in power now .
What else would you want ?
Monsanto or AIG have nothing to do with computers so I guess we are stuck with MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too.No - don't poke fun of this, this is important.
They are still fucking up open standards (svg) and have an even less likable guy in power now.
What else would you want?
Monsanto or AIG have nothing to do with computers so I guess we are stuck with MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30746650</id>
	<title>Re:Silent Running</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263313800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought I was the only one who remembered Silent Running! Great film, and although I'm against the idea of reboots, this old gem deseerves a shiny new version.</p><p>Also deserving of reboot:</p><p>ROBOTECH!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought I was the only one who remembered Silent Running !
Great film , and although I 'm against the idea of reboots , this old gem deseerves a shiny new version.Also deserving of reboot : ROBOTECH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought I was the only one who remembered Silent Running!
Great film, and although I'm against the idea of reboots, this old gem deseerves a shiny new version.Also deserving of reboot:ROBOTECH!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30770610</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263463140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear, hear.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Star Trek is like a five-hundred pound shark... with an eight-hundred pound remora attached to it. Every time the shark gets a taste of real meat, the remora pulls it off course, screaming "MORE CHUM!!!"</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear , hear.Star Trek is like a five-hundred pound shark... with an eight-hundred pound remora attached to it .
Every time the shark gets a taste of real meat , the remora pulls it off course , screaming " MORE CHUM ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear, hear.Star Trek is like a five-hundred pound shark... with an eight-hundred pound remora attached to it.
Every time the shark gets a taste of real meat, the remora pulls it off course, screaming "MORE CHUM!!!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727852</id>
	<title>Re:Star Blazers</title>
	<author>Luminary Crush</author>
	<datestamp>1263201420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to get up early in the morning before school to watch this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>I have all three seasons of it at home.  Very cool<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to get up early in the morning before school to watch this : - ) I have all three seasons of it at home .
Very cool : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to get up early in the morning before school to watch this :-)I have all three seasons of it at home.
Very cool :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727504</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1263243540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen.
<br>
So when, oh when, will someone do "Neuromancer" on the big screen? Maybe the whole trilogy, even? So OK, <i>Johnny Mnemonic</i> was a mess, but Gibson's vision, done well, would be glorious to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
So when , oh when , will someone do " Neuromancer " on the big screen ?
Maybe the whole trilogy , even ?
So OK , Johnny Mnemonic was a mess , but Gibson 's vision , done well , would be glorious to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
So when, oh when, will someone do "Neuromancer" on the big screen?
Maybe the whole trilogy, even?
So OK, Johnny Mnemonic was a mess, but Gibson's vision, done well, would be glorious to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727722</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get something close: The Diamond Age is going to be a 6-hour miniseries, produced by George Clooney.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get something close : The Diamond Age is going to be a 6-hour miniseries , produced by George Clooney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get something close: The Diamond Age is going to be a 6-hour miniseries, produced by George Clooney.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726818</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>Botched</author>
	<datestamp>1263241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vila: "Where are all the good guys?"
Blake: "You may be looking at them."
Avon: "What a depressing thought."

And the best ending a show could ask for!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vila : " Where are all the good guys ?
" Blake : " You may be looking at them .
" Avon : " What a depressing thought .
" And the best ending a show could ask for !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vila: "Where are all the good guys?
"
Blake: "You may be looking at them.
"
Avon: "What a depressing thought.
"

And the best ending a show could ask for!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728574</id>
	<title>Re:Star Wars</title>
	<author>dark\_requiem</author>
	<datestamp>1263204000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hell, I'd settle for getting my hands on a 1080p copy of IV, V, and VI without all the Special Edition crap.  I'd even settle for getting them on a DVD with anamorphic encoding.  Sucks that George Lucas was swapped for a pod person in 1995...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , I 'd settle for getting my hands on a 1080p copy of IV , V , and VI without all the Special Edition crap .
I 'd even settle for getting them on a DVD with anamorphic encoding .
Sucks that George Lucas was swapped for a pod person in 1995.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, I'd settle for getting my hands on a 1080p copy of IV, V, and VI without all the Special Edition crap.
I'd even settle for getting them on a DVD with anamorphic encoding.
Sucks that George Lucas was swapped for a pod person in 1995...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728054</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263202140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BBC isn't currently involved in any efforts to bring back Blakes 7.<br>Sky TV (which is the same company as FOX) has commissioned some scripts for a pilot for a re-imagined Blakes 7 from the current copyright holders.  Unfortunately, that was more than a year ago and there hasn't been any public announcements since then.</p><p>I'm a little bit skeptical due to the lack of public progress, and I really didn't like how FOX brought back Doctor Who back in the 90s.  Even if it does come back, it would be sad if it resembled the Doctor Who "movie."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC is n't currently involved in any efforts to bring back Blakes 7.Sky TV ( which is the same company as FOX ) has commissioned some scripts for a pilot for a re-imagined Blakes 7 from the current copyright holders .
Unfortunately , that was more than a year ago and there has n't been any public announcements since then.I 'm a little bit skeptical due to the lack of public progress , and I really did n't like how FOX brought back Doctor Who back in the 90s .
Even if it does come back , it would be sad if it resembled the Doctor Who " movie .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC isn't currently involved in any efforts to bring back Blakes 7.Sky TV (which is the same company as FOX) has commissioned some scripts for a pilot for a re-imagined Blakes 7 from the current copyright holders.
Unfortunately, that was more than a year ago and there hasn't been any public announcements since then.I'm a little bit skeptical due to the lack of public progress, and I really didn't like how FOX brought back Doctor Who back in the 90s.
Even if it does come back, it would be sad if it resembled the Doctor Who "movie.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731062</id>
	<title>Michael Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius Quartet</title>
	<author>MuChild</author>
	<datestamp>1263214380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say this knowing that it would really make a great film(s) if they re-worked the characters and plots of at least the Final Programme. I have seen the original '70's version and, while it has it's upsides, it could really be done much better today. <br> <br>

It's got sex, drugs, humor, rock and roll, time-travel, hermaphroditic super-beings...you name it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say this knowing that it would really make a great film ( s ) if they re-worked the characters and plots of at least the Final Programme .
I have seen the original '70 's version and , while it has it 's upsides , it could really be done much better today .
It 's got sex , drugs , humor , rock and roll , time-travel , hermaphroditic super-beings...you name it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say this knowing that it would really make a great film(s) if they re-worked the characters and plots of at least the Final Programme.
I have seen the original '70's version and, while it has it's upsides, it could really be done much better today.
It's got sex, drugs, humor, rock and roll, time-travel, hermaphroditic super-beings...you name it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744164</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1263297660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got an original idea.  I just don't have a TV/film production deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got an original idea .
I just do n't have a TV/film production deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got an original idea.
I just don't have a TV/film production deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30739052</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>gravis777</author>
	<datestamp>1263318840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shoot, I would love to see, oh what's his name, is it Elijah Baley, from Asmov's Robots of Dawn series? A futuristic crime show? Shoot, crime shows are all the rage now, I am sure those would do fairly well.</p><p>As far as a reboot, Buck Rogers or Flash Gordan would be good. Or something like Seaquest with a decent story and decent writters. Shoot, I would like to see Lost In Space Rebooted a second time (taht cast in the movie would have worked if the characters weren't so freakin flat). Take people similar to the original cast, flesh out a GOOD set of stories, and extend them over a series instead of in a single movie. Kill the monkey. And keep the Stargate Universe writters away from it - I really do not want to see the whole Robinson family fighting with each other and sleeping together (shudders).</p><p>That's one. I know we are only one season in, but reboot Stargate Universe. God, that show sucks! Thanks for killing the francise, SGU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shoot , I would love to see , oh what 's his name , is it Elijah Baley , from Asmov 's Robots of Dawn series ?
A futuristic crime show ?
Shoot , crime shows are all the rage now , I am sure those would do fairly well.As far as a reboot , Buck Rogers or Flash Gordan would be good .
Or something like Seaquest with a decent story and decent writters .
Shoot , I would like to see Lost In Space Rebooted a second time ( taht cast in the movie would have worked if the characters were n't so freakin flat ) .
Take people similar to the original cast , flesh out a GOOD set of stories , and extend them over a series instead of in a single movie .
Kill the monkey .
And keep the Stargate Universe writters away from it - I really do not want to see the whole Robinson family fighting with each other and sleeping together ( shudders ) .That 's one .
I know we are only one season in , but reboot Stargate Universe .
God , that show sucks !
Thanks for killing the francise , SGU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shoot, I would love to see, oh what's his name, is it Elijah Baley, from Asmov's Robots of Dawn series?
A futuristic crime show?
Shoot, crime shows are all the rage now, I am sure those would do fairly well.As far as a reboot, Buck Rogers or Flash Gordan would be good.
Or something like Seaquest with a decent story and decent writters.
Shoot, I would like to see Lost In Space Rebooted a second time (taht cast in the movie would have worked if the characters weren't so freakin flat).
Take people similar to the original cast, flesh out a GOOD set of stories, and extend them over a series instead of in a single movie.
Kill the monkey.
And keep the Stargate Universe writters away from it - I really do not want to see the whole Robinson family fighting with each other and sleeping together (shudders).That's one.
I know we are only one season in, but reboot Stargate Universe.
God, that show sucks!
Thanks for killing the francise, SGU!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727756</id>
	<title>Starship Troopers</title>
	<author>Trails</author>
	<datestamp>1263201120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Needs a show, true to the book.</p><p>In the pilot, they should horsewhip and then shoot an unnamed director who commits the cultural crime of taking an amazing book and turning it into a shitastic movie.</p><p>The other setting I'd like to see expanded into new media is wh40k.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Needs a show , true to the book.In the pilot , they should horsewhip and then shoot an unnamed director who commits the cultural crime of taking an amazing book and turning it into a shitastic movie.The other setting I 'd like to see expanded into new media is wh40k .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Needs a show, true to the book.In the pilot, they should horsewhip and then shoot an unnamed director who commits the cultural crime of taking an amazing book and turning it into a shitastic movie.The other setting I'd like to see expanded into new media is wh40k.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728952</id>
	<title>Re:Ringworld</title>
	<author>zerocool^</author>
	<datestamp>1263205260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but no.</p><p>I read Ringworld for the first time a couple of months ago, and to be honest, I was entirely underwhelmed.  The premise was silly in the first place, the characters might have looked good once but now seemed to be simple caricatures of silly stereotypes from the dawn of modern sci-fi, and the writing was not very good.</p><p>There was nothing at all resolved - why was this ring built?  Who built it?  Why did they build it?  What happened to it?  Where did they go?  How long ago did they leave?  What has happened in the mean time?  What else is on the ring?  Are there any civilizations that are modern remaining on it?</p><p>And on top of that, the author has NO concept of falling action.  Literally, the main plot point (how do we get off this thing?) was resolved (maybe, kind of), and three paragraphs later, the book was over.</p><p>I was completely underwhelmed.  My wife tells me there are sequels, but without the first book actually being finished, I think that they've got to be just finishing up the story that was essentially abandoned.</p><p>Now, I guess I would have to concede that if you are talking about making a show about the whole series, including all the information in the sequels (which is substantial, according to what I'm reading on Wikipedia), then maybe.  But the book its self left me extremely unsatisfied.</p><p>~W</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but no.I read Ringworld for the first time a couple of months ago , and to be honest , I was entirely underwhelmed .
The premise was silly in the first place , the characters might have looked good once but now seemed to be simple caricatures of silly stereotypes from the dawn of modern sci-fi , and the writing was not very good.There was nothing at all resolved - why was this ring built ?
Who built it ?
Why did they build it ?
What happened to it ?
Where did they go ?
How long ago did they leave ?
What has happened in the mean time ?
What else is on the ring ?
Are there any civilizations that are modern remaining on it ? And on top of that , the author has NO concept of falling action .
Literally , the main plot point ( how do we get off this thing ?
) was resolved ( maybe , kind of ) , and three paragraphs later , the book was over.I was completely underwhelmed .
My wife tells me there are sequels , but without the first book actually being finished , I think that they 've got to be just finishing up the story that was essentially abandoned.Now , I guess I would have to concede that if you are talking about making a show about the whole series , including all the information in the sequels ( which is substantial , according to what I 'm reading on Wikipedia ) , then maybe .
But the book its self left me extremely unsatisfied. ~ W</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but no.I read Ringworld for the first time a couple of months ago, and to be honest, I was entirely underwhelmed.
The premise was silly in the first place, the characters might have looked good once but now seemed to be simple caricatures of silly stereotypes from the dawn of modern sci-fi, and the writing was not very good.There was nothing at all resolved - why was this ring built?
Who built it?
Why did they build it?
What happened to it?
Where did they go?
How long ago did they leave?
What has happened in the mean time?
What else is on the ring?
Are there any civilizations that are modern remaining on it?And on top of that, the author has NO concept of falling action.
Literally, the main plot point (how do we get off this thing?
) was resolved (maybe, kind of), and three paragraphs later, the book was over.I was completely underwhelmed.
My wife tells me there are sequels, but without the first book actually being finished, I think that they've got to be just finishing up the story that was essentially abandoned.Now, I guess I would have to concede that if you are talking about making a show about the whole series, including all the information in the sequels (which is substantial, according to what I'm reading on Wikipedia), then maybe.
But the book its self left me extremely unsatisfied.~W</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728336</id>
	<title>I want another 35 seasons of galactica.</title>
	<author>Turbosatan</author>
	<datestamp>1263203160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i was sad when it finished. not just because it was a sad ending but because i knew there wouldnt be another sifi series like it for such a long time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i was sad when it finished .
not just because it was a sad ending but because i knew there wouldnt be another sifi series like it for such a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was sad when it finished.
not just because it was a sad ending but because i knew there wouldnt be another sifi series like it for such a long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727920</id>
	<title>Re:against a dark background</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1263201660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you will probably like to see a reboot of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/" title="imdb.com">Dark Star</a> [imdb.com] easily the greatest sci-fi film of all time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you will probably like to see a reboot of Dark Star [ imdb.com ] easily the greatest sci-fi film of all time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you will probably like to see a reboot of Dark Star [imdb.com] easily the greatest sci-fi film of all time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729876</id>
	<title>New</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, there are SOOO many good stories out there.  Make something new and leave the classics alone.  1.  This will enrich our selection of stories to watch as a society.  2. You will not get the complaints from the fans. 3. You will have shown yourself as an artist, and not just a money hound.</p><p>I know, sequels and remakes make money.  But so will something new.</p><p>How about making the Wheel of Time series?  Or a series based on the game Paranoia or Shadowrun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , there are SOOO many good stories out there .
Make something new and leave the classics alone .
1. This will enrich our selection of stories to watch as a society .
2. You will not get the complaints from the fans .
3. You will have shown yourself as an artist , and not just a money hound.I know , sequels and remakes make money .
But so will something new.How about making the Wheel of Time series ?
Or a series based on the game Paranoia or Shadowrun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, there are SOOO many good stories out there.
Make something new and leave the classics alone.
1.  This will enrich our selection of stories to watch as a society.
2. You will not get the complaints from the fans.
3. You will have shown yourself as an artist, and not just a money hound.I know, sequels and remakes make money.
But so will something new.How about making the Wheel of Time series?
Or a series based on the game Paranoia or Shadowrun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728106</id>
	<title>not a TV show or movie but</title>
	<author>schroet</author>
	<datestamp>1263202260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri by Looking Glass Software</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terra Nova : Strike Force Centauri by Looking Glass Software</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri by Looking Glass Software</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730632</id>
	<title>Fan Scripts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263212160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.stillflying.net/<br>Although we'll probably never have new real episodes, the site above has fan-made scripts -- based on Whedon's drafts -- for a completed 1st season and a 2nd season that retells "Serenity" over many TV-length episodes. I enjoyed these nearly as much as the real shows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.stillflying.net/Although we 'll probably never have new real episodes , the site above has fan-made scripts -- based on Whedon 's drafts -- for a completed 1st season and a 2nd season that retells " Serenity " over many TV-length episodes .
I enjoyed these nearly as much as the real shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.stillflying.net/Although we'll probably never have new real episodes, the site above has fan-made scripts -- based on Whedon's drafts -- for a completed 1st season and a 2nd season that retells "Serenity" over many TV-length episodes.
I enjoyed these nearly as much as the real shows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728228</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek, use the last movies cast</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263202740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I would love to see the Dilgar War and earth coming of age, that would be great</p></div><p>It might be great.  Or it might be as bad as In The Beginning, where it's incredibly difficult to suspend disbelief that all of the main characters from the show, who met each other for the first time on the show, were so closely involved during the Earth-Minbari War.  The Dilgar War would be an interesting setting, because it set the scenes for the Minbari War.  It was the first human encounter with hostile aliens and the hubris after the victory caused rash action with regard to the Minbari.  It would only work without cameo appearances by characters from the original show though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see the Dilgar War and earth coming of age , that would be greatIt might be great .
Or it might be as bad as In The Beginning , where it 's incredibly difficult to suspend disbelief that all of the main characters from the show , who met each other for the first time on the show , were so closely involved during the Earth-Minbari War .
The Dilgar War would be an interesting setting , because it set the scenes for the Minbari War .
It was the first human encounter with hostile aliens and the hubris after the victory caused rash action with regard to the Minbari .
It would only work without cameo appearances by characters from the original show though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I would love to see the Dilgar War and earth coming of age, that would be greatIt might be great.
Or it might be as bad as In The Beginning, where it's incredibly difficult to suspend disbelief that all of the main characters from the show, who met each other for the first time on the show, were so closely involved during the Earth-Minbari War.
The Dilgar War would be an interesting setting, because it set the scenes for the Minbari War.
It was the first human encounter with hostile aliens and the hubris after the victory caused rash action with regard to the Minbari.
It would only work without cameo appearances by characters from the original show though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731872</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe</title>
	<author>postmodernistic</author>
	<datestamp>1263219480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pocahontas!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pocahontas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pocahontas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730724</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1263212760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I have no problem with those deaths, for reasons similar to what you stated.</p><p>However, if Firefly were ever given the chance to continue, I would want those characters to return. <i>Serenity</i> was a conclusion to the story. The deaths of Wash and Book were part of that conclusion. But I'd like to see the movie replaced with a continuing story &mdash; not because I didn't like the movie (in fact, I loved it), but simply because I want to see more <i>Firefly</i>. When it finally comes time to bring the story to a conclusion, they can go ahead and kill off whoever they want. But until then, I would love to see the story continue where the series left off.</p><p>Of course, in reality, it isn't likely going to happen. The end of <i>Firefly</i> is just one of those tragedies that we will just have to live with (insofar as losing a TV show can be a tragedy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I have no problem with those deaths , for reasons similar to what you stated.However , if Firefly were ever given the chance to continue , I would want those characters to return .
Serenity was a conclusion to the story .
The deaths of Wash and Book were part of that conclusion .
But I 'd like to see the movie replaced with a continuing story    not because I did n't like the movie ( in fact , I loved it ) , but simply because I want to see more Firefly .
When it finally comes time to bring the story to a conclusion , they can go ahead and kill off whoever they want .
But until then , I would love to see the story continue where the series left off.Of course , in reality , it is n't likely going to happen .
The end of Firefly is just one of those tragedies that we will just have to live with ( insofar as losing a TV show can be a tragedy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I have no problem with those deaths, for reasons similar to what you stated.However, if Firefly were ever given the chance to continue, I would want those characters to return.
Serenity was a conclusion to the story.
The deaths of Wash and Book were part of that conclusion.
But I'd like to see the movie replaced with a continuing story — not because I didn't like the movie (in fact, I loved it), but simply because I want to see more Firefly.
When it finally comes time to bring the story to a conclusion, they can go ahead and kill off whoever they want.
But until then, I would love to see the story continue where the series left off.Of course, in reality, it isn't likely going to happen.
The end of Firefly is just one of those tragedies that we will just have to live with (insofar as losing a TV show can be a tragedy).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727416</id>
	<title>Mike Resnick has the most ready-for-tv</title>
	<author>Botched</author>
	<datestamp>1263243300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fiction out there.  It's space opera, damned good space opera.  The humor and flavor is in the characters, not the special effects budget.  If you pick up Santiago, the Widowmaker series, hell, just about any of his books you could make a good episode from each chapter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fiction out there .
It 's space opera , damned good space opera .
The humor and flavor is in the characters , not the special effects budget .
If you pick up Santiago , the Widowmaker series , hell , just about any of his books you could make a good episode from each chapter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fiction out there.
It's space opera, damned good space opera.
The humor and flavor is in the characters, not the special effects budget.
If you pick up Santiago, the Widowmaker series, hell, just about any of his books you could make a good episode from each chapter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30740942</id>
	<title>SciFi, SchmiFi</title>
	<author>jman.org</author>
	<datestamp>1263325800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about Quark?  Would be nice to see Gene/Gene on the airwaves again.
<br> <br>
BTW, Forrest J. Ackerman coined the phrase "Sci-Fi" to honor early science fiction editor Hugo Gernsback, who was also into radio   (think Hi-Fi).
<br> <br>
Forrey was a great man, but really blew it with this horrid nickname.  Trufen pronounce it "Skiffy".</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Quark ?
Would be nice to see Gene/Gene on the airwaves again .
BTW , Forrest J. Ackerman coined the phrase " Sci-Fi " to honor early science fiction editor Hugo Gernsback , who was also into radio ( think Hi-Fi ) .
Forrey was a great man , but really blew it with this horrid nickname .
Trufen pronounce it " Skiffy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Quark?
Would be nice to see Gene/Gene on the airwaves again.
BTW, Forrest J. Ackerman coined the phrase "Sci-Fi" to honor early science fiction editor Hugo Gernsback, who was also into radio   (think Hi-Fi).
Forrey was a great man, but really blew it with this horrid nickname.
Trufen pronounce it "Skiffy".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729350</id>
	<title>Re:A couple of Classic Brit Sci-Fi's for a reboot.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263206700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with Space 1999 is that it's basically impossible to tweak the premise in such a way that it's not completely ridiculous.  They are kicked out of Earth's orbit and travel past a different planet every week.  To do this, they must be going at several times the speed of light, and yet their Eagles can take off, land on the nearest planet, and then catch up with the moon.  In spite of this feat, the same Eagles could not just evacuate them all back to Earth.  You simply can't fix this.  Either the moon is going at a plausible speed, in which case they've got months to be evacuated and there's no show, or the moon is superluninal, in which case they're stuck on it. </p><p>
UFO, on the other hand, could work quite well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Space 1999 is that it 's basically impossible to tweak the premise in such a way that it 's not completely ridiculous .
They are kicked out of Earth 's orbit and travel past a different planet every week .
To do this , they must be going at several times the speed of light , and yet their Eagles can take off , land on the nearest planet , and then catch up with the moon .
In spite of this feat , the same Eagles could not just evacuate them all back to Earth .
You simply ca n't fix this .
Either the moon is going at a plausible speed , in which case they 've got months to be evacuated and there 's no show , or the moon is superluninal , in which case they 're stuck on it .
UFO , on the other hand , could work quite well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Space 1999 is that it's basically impossible to tweak the premise in such a way that it's not completely ridiculous.
They are kicked out of Earth's orbit and travel past a different planet every week.
To do this, they must be going at several times the speed of light, and yet their Eagles can take off, land on the nearest planet, and then catch up with the moon.
In spite of this feat, the same Eagles could not just evacuate them all back to Earth.
You simply can't fix this.
Either the moon is going at a plausible speed, in which case they've got months to be evacuated and there's no show, or the moon is superluninal, in which case they're stuck on it.
UFO, on the other hand, could work quite well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727630</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1263200700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Blake's 7 would be best done in the U.K. and marketed to sy-fi/NBC or BBC America.</p><p>I would think all Blakes 7 would need is 1/2 the budget of the new doctor who to look somewhat decent, the tough part is picking someone who can play Avon the way Paul Darrow could...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Blake 's 7 would be best done in the U.K. and marketed to sy-fi/NBC or BBC America.I would think all Blakes 7 would need is 1/2 the budget of the new doctor who to look somewhat decent , the tough part is picking someone who can play Avon the way Paul Darrow could.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Blake's 7 would be best done in the U.K. and marketed to sy-fi/NBC or BBC America.I would think all Blakes 7 would need is 1/2 the budget of the new doctor who to look somewhat decent, the tough part is picking someone who can play Avon the way Paul Darrow could...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728458</id>
	<title>DarkSkies</title>
	<author>lolococo</author>
	<datestamp>1263203580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark\_Skies" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark\_Skies</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark \ _Skies [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark\_Skies [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727308</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with or without nuclear weapons? oh wait, wrong story</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with or without nuclear weapons ?
oh wait , wrong story</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with or without nuclear weapons?
oh wait, wrong story</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727400</id>
	<title>Outer Limits...but then again</title>
	<author>treeves</author>
	<datestamp>1263243240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I loved the show as a kid, but I recently saw a couple of the remake episodes and they were terrible. Someone who must have never seen the original series must have done it, just trying to cash in on the name. Similar sentiments for The Twilight Zone. Don't get my hopes up like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved the show as a kid , but I recently saw a couple of the remake episodes and they were terrible .
Someone who must have never seen the original series must have done it , just trying to cash in on the name .
Similar sentiments for The Twilight Zone .
Do n't get my hopes up like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved the show as a kid, but I recently saw a couple of the remake episodes and they were terrible.
Someone who must have never seen the original series must have done it, just trying to cash in on the name.
Similar sentiments for The Twilight Zone.
Don't get my hopes up like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727204</id>
	<title>Three words:</title>
	<author>Sicily1918</author>
	<datestamp>1263242700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thundarr the Barbarian!<br>
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundarr" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundarr</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thundarr the Barbarian !
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundarr [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thundarr the Barbarian!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundarr [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733946</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>JackieBrown</author>
	<datestamp>1263238080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 for Wash.  Sheppard Book was ok and I can think of another character I would have killed before him, but he is not much of a loss (even though I would have loved to haved found out more of his back story.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 for Wash. Sheppard Book was ok and I can think of another character I would have killed before him , but he is not much of a loss ( even though I would have loved to haved found out more of his back story .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 for Wash.  Sheppard Book was ok and I can think of another character I would have killed before him, but he is not much of a loss (even though I would have loved to haved found out more of his back story.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732502</id>
	<title>Re:they should turn 'land of the lost' into a movi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263224340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh good god that movie was terrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh good god that movie was terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh good god that movie was terrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734382</id>
	<title>WOK</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1263287640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Studio Ghibli apparently held (or was at least thinking about, once upon a time) some sort of rights to a Miyazaki version of James H. Schmidt's <i>Witches of Karres.</i>  See <a href="http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/books/miyazaki/#karres" title="nausicaa.net">http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/books/miyazaki/#karres</a> [nausicaa.net] for a cover illustration for the Japanese edition of the book.  An anime version would be awesome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Studio Ghibli apparently held ( or was at least thinking about , once upon a time ) some sort of rights to a Miyazaki version of James H. Schmidt 's Witches of Karres .
See http : //www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/books/miyazaki/ # karres [ nausicaa.net ] for a cover illustration for the Japanese edition of the book .
An anime version would be awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Studio Ghibli apparently held (or was at least thinking about, once upon a time) some sort of rights to a Miyazaki version of James H. Schmidt's Witches of Karres.
See http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/books/miyazaki/#karres [nausicaa.net] for a cover illustration for the Japanese edition of the book.
An anime version would be awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729242</id>
	<title>Re:Starship Troopers</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1263206340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, the book was about two things:</p><p>1. The politics<br>2. The powered armour</p><p>Just because both those things were missing from the movie... oh, wait, I see your point now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , the book was about two things : 1 .
The politics2 .
The powered armourJust because both those things were missing from the movie... oh , wait , I see your point now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, the book was about two things:1.
The politics2.
The powered armourJust because both those things were missing from the movie... oh, wait, I see your point now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</id>
	<title>Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>IBitOBear</author>
	<datestamp>1263241740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That and un-kill Wash and Sheppard Book.</p><p>Oh, and get rid of the whole Miranda bullshit. The people who ply the lanes of space would neither "overlook" nor "forget" an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years. Nor could such a thing be hidden as, outer-most or not, it would show up on everybody's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots. Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.</p><p>Oh yea, and drop that whole "all the planets orbiting one sun" nonsense since it isn't workable. Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball \_or\_ the "inner planets" would be molten slag.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I loved the show. The movie needs to be declared out-of-cannon before the series would be workable.</p><p>I could have come up with a better "reason for the reavers" in my sleep. The original one from the series (mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc) was good enough. Hell, the movie contradicted the series directly. If the Pax caused reaverdom, the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudln't have worked unless the reavers carry a supply of the otherwise secret Pax around and deliberately pre-expose potential recruits to it before deciding who to kill, rape, and eat (in that order, if you're really lucky).</p><p>So yea, it needs a reboot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That and un-kill Wash and Sheppard Book.Oh , and get rid of the whole Miranda bullshit .
The people who ply the lanes of space would neither " overlook " nor " forget " an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years .
Nor could such a thing be hidden as , outer-most or not , it would show up on everybody 's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots .
Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.Oh yea , and drop that whole " all the planets orbiting one sun " nonsense since it is n't workable .
Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball \ _or \ _ the " inner planets " would be molten slag.Do n't get me wrong , I loved the show .
The movie needs to be declared out-of-cannon before the series would be workable.I could have come up with a better " reason for the reavers " in my sleep .
The original one from the series ( mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc ) was good enough .
Hell , the movie contradicted the series directly .
If the Pax caused reaverdom , the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudl n't have worked unless the reavers carry a supply of the otherwise secret Pax around and deliberately pre-expose potential recruits to it before deciding who to kill , rape , and eat ( in that order , if you 're really lucky ) .So yea , it needs a reboot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That and un-kill Wash and Sheppard Book.Oh, and get rid of the whole Miranda bullshit.
The people who ply the lanes of space would neither "overlook" nor "forget" an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years.
Nor could such a thing be hidden as, outer-most or not, it would show up on everybody's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots.
Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.Oh yea, and drop that whole "all the planets orbiting one sun" nonsense since it isn't workable.
Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball \_or\_ the "inner planets" would be molten slag.Don't get me wrong, I loved the show.
The movie needs to be declared out-of-cannon before the series would be workable.I could have come up with a better "reason for the reavers" in my sleep.
The original one from the series (mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc) was good enough.
Hell, the movie contradicted the series directly.
If the Pax caused reaverdom, the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudln't have worked unless the reavers carry a supply of the otherwise secret Pax around and deliberately pre-expose potential recruits to it before deciding who to kill, rape, and eat (in that order, if you're really lucky).So yea, it needs a reboot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728440</id>
	<title>Re:Old Man's War - John Scalzi</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1263203520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly I would love to see a series set in this universe. Plenty of things to discuss and a lot of opportunity for character development and all in an environment that would allow for kick-ass special effects. This book and its successors are nothing short of brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly I would love to see a series set in this universe .
Plenty of things to discuss and a lot of opportunity for character development and all in an environment that would allow for kick-ass special effects .
This book and its successors are nothing short of brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly I would love to see a series set in this universe.
Plenty of things to discuss and a lot of opportunity for character development and all in an environment that would allow for kick-ass special effects.
This book and its successors are nothing short of brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732674</id>
	<title>Re:Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>WoRLoKKeD</author>
	<datestamp>1263225600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to say this. I can't agree more.

 REBOOT REBOOT, DAMNIT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say this .
I ca n't agree more .
REBOOT REBOOT , DAMNIT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say this.
I can't agree more.
REBOOT REBOOT, DAMNIT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741974</id>
	<title>SPACE 1999 and SPACE: ABOVE AND BEYOND</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1263286980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if I got the names exactly right, but I loved both when I was younger, and both could be rebooted successfully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if I got the names exactly right , but I loved both when I was younger , and both could be rebooted successfully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if I got the names exactly right, but I loved both when I was younger, and both could be rebooted successfully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733622</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263233880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think he was saying the movie was bad, just that the movie was easily 2-3 seasons worth of material (either skipped or condensed), and largely wrapped up the story. While it would be possible to continue the series from after the movie, it wouldn't be at all the same series as continuing from season 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think he was saying the movie was bad , just that the movie was easily 2-3 seasons worth of material ( either skipped or condensed ) , and largely wrapped up the story .
While it would be possible to continue the series from after the movie , it would n't be at all the same series as continuing from season 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think he was saying the movie was bad, just that the movie was easily 2-3 seasons worth of material (either skipped or condensed), and largely wrapped up the story.
While it would be possible to continue the series from after the movie, it wouldn't be at all the same series as continuing from season 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733838</id>
	<title>somthing from JMS</title>
	<author>JayAEU</author>
	<datestamp>1263236340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd really like to see JMS finish up some of his older stories, preferably Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors. If this came out in Hollywood quality, it'd really be a blast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd really like to see JMS finish up some of his older stories , preferably Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors .
If this came out in Hollywood quality , it 'd really be a blast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd really like to see JMS finish up some of his older stories, preferably Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors.
If this came out in Hollywood quality, it'd really be a blast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728532</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flogger: I think the 80s twilight zone wasn't as good as the new outer limits...So yes, it could use a reboot.<br>Your suggestions for movies are all good...I was just recommended Startide Rising by a friend and can't wait to read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flogger : I think the 80s twilight zone was n't as good as the new outer limits...So yes , it could use a reboot.Your suggestions for movies are all good...I was just recommended Startide Rising by a friend and ca n't wait to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flogger: I think the 80s twilight zone wasn't as good as the new outer limits...So yes, it could use a reboot.Your suggestions for movies are all good...I was just recommended Startide Rising by a friend and can't wait to read it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733292</id>
	<title>Re:Star Wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263230640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life</p></div></blockquote><p> Starwars.  Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.</p></div><p>That will probably happen within 5 years of Lucas's Death.</p><p>To paraphrase/misquote:</p><p>"Suddenly, one life was extinguished, and it was as if Billions cried out in triumph!"</p><p>Seriously though -- I don't wish anyone ill... but George really wrecked the series..</p><p>I for one would LOVE to see some of the much much later stories told...</p><p>I think the X-Wing Series would do well on the big screen, lots of action and space battles... with characters we all know...</p><p>But for me... Bring on the Yuzhon Vong. The Vong wars were the darkest, deadliest period the Star Wars "Galaxy" ever saw, had the death of Chewbacca, Anakin Solo, and well.. the GOOD GUYS blew up a planet.</p><p>I mean, if that's not full of moral ambiguity and action, I dunno what is.</p><p>Great series, that. Oh, and loved how the Republic Fails and needs to start up a Galactic Alliance with the Empire Remnant!</p><p>Politics... always makes for strange bedfellows.</p><p>Would be an amazing series.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life Starwars .
Episodes 1 , 2 and 3 especially.That will probably happen within 5 years of Lucas 's Death.To paraphrase/misquote : " Suddenly , one life was extinguished , and it was as if Billions cried out in triumph !
" Seriously though -- I do n't wish anyone ill... but George really wrecked the series..I for one would LOVE to see some of the much much later stories told...I think the X-Wing Series would do well on the big screen , lots of action and space battles... with characters we all know...But for me... Bring on the Yuzhon Vong .
The Vong wars were the darkest , deadliest period the Star Wars " Galaxy " ever saw , had the death of Chewbacca , Anakin Solo , and well.. the GOOD GUYS blew up a planet.I mean , if that 's not full of moral ambiguity and action , I dunno what is.Great series , that .
Oh , and loved how the Republic Fails and needs to start up a Galactic Alliance with the Empire Remnant ! Politics... always makes for strange bedfellows.Would be an amazing series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life Starwars.
Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.That will probably happen within 5 years of Lucas's Death.To paraphrase/misquote:"Suddenly, one life was extinguished, and it was as if Billions cried out in triumph!
"Seriously though -- I don't wish anyone ill... but George really wrecked the series..I for one would LOVE to see some of the much much later stories told...I think the X-Wing Series would do well on the big screen, lots of action and space battles... with characters we all know...But for me... Bring on the Yuzhon Vong.
The Vong wars were the darkest, deadliest period the Star Wars "Galaxy" ever saw, had the death of Chewbacca, Anakin Solo, and well.. the GOOD GUYS blew up a planet.I mean, if that's not full of moral ambiguity and action, I dunno what is.Great series, that.
Oh, and loved how the Republic Fails and needs to start up a Galactic Alliance with the Empire Remnant!Politics... always makes for strange bedfellows.Would be an amazing series.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730524</id>
	<title>RED DWARF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not one person mentioned Red Dwarf.</p><p>Communal PHAIL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not one person mentioned Red Dwarf.Communal PHAIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not one person mentioned Red Dwarf.Communal PHAIL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726960</id>
	<title>Star Trek, use the last movies cast</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1263241980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because the camaraderie of the new crew was leaps and bounds beyond any of the series that followed TOS.  While it was not "Trek" for all people it was fun to watch the characters interact.</p><p>As for the rest, some must remain as is to maintain the status they had.  Babylon 5 (is it really 15 years old?) was great for what it was when it was.  While I would not mind seeing new stories based on that universe I don't want to see the old stories again.  Part of its allure was the interaction of the characters in the show, G'Kar and Londo, Sheridan and Delenn (even Sinclair and Delenn) let alone Bester.   I would love to see the Dilgar War and earth coming of age, that would be great.</p><p>1999/UFO.  Both were good for their times, but science has come a bit further and more pressing concerns are at home.  Unlike distant Sci-Fi they would be a little too close to our age for comfort.</p><p>Firefly?  No.  Leave it or bring it back with the SAME people.  Rebooting it would be like, oh I don't know, somehow claiming the original was flawed because of the characters.  It was very character driven.  Probably why I liked it almost as much as B5 or the new Trek.  The SciFi part doesn't have to be amazing if the characters truly are interesting/believable</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because the camaraderie of the new crew was leaps and bounds beyond any of the series that followed TOS .
While it was not " Trek " for all people it was fun to watch the characters interact.As for the rest , some must remain as is to maintain the status they had .
Babylon 5 ( is it really 15 years old ?
) was great for what it was when it was .
While I would not mind seeing new stories based on that universe I do n't want to see the old stories again .
Part of its allure was the interaction of the characters in the show , G'Kar and Londo , Sheridan and Delenn ( even Sinclair and Delenn ) let alone Bester .
I would love to see the Dilgar War and earth coming of age , that would be great.1999/UFO .
Both were good for their times , but science has come a bit further and more pressing concerns are at home .
Unlike distant Sci-Fi they would be a little too close to our age for comfort.Firefly ?
No. Leave it or bring it back with the SAME people .
Rebooting it would be like , oh I do n't know , somehow claiming the original was flawed because of the characters .
It was very character driven .
Probably why I liked it almost as much as B5 or the new Trek .
The SciFi part does n't have to be amazing if the characters truly are interesting/believable</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the camaraderie of the new crew was leaps and bounds beyond any of the series that followed TOS.
While it was not "Trek" for all people it was fun to watch the characters interact.As for the rest, some must remain as is to maintain the status they had.
Babylon 5 (is it really 15 years old?
) was great for what it was when it was.
While I would not mind seeing new stories based on that universe I don't want to see the old stories again.
Part of its allure was the interaction of the characters in the show, G'Kar and Londo, Sheridan and Delenn (even Sinclair and Delenn) let alone Bester.
I would love to see the Dilgar War and earth coming of age, that would be great.1999/UFO.
Both were good for their times, but science has come a bit further and more pressing concerns are at home.
Unlike distant Sci-Fi they would be a little too close to our age for comfort.Firefly?
No.  Leave it or bring it back with the SAME people.
Rebooting it would be like, oh I don't know, somehow claiming the original was flawed because of the characters.
It was very character driven.
Probably why I liked it almost as much as B5 or the new Trek.
The SciFi part doesn't have to be amazing if the characters truly are interesting/believable</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728960</id>
	<title>Will miss Bill Bixby, though...</title>
	<author>plasmasurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1263205320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Favorite Martian!  I loved Uncle Martin's flying saucer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Favorite Martian !
I loved Uncle Martin 's flying saucer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Favorite Martian!
I loved Uncle Martin's flying saucer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728956</id>
	<title>Re:B5: Crusade</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1263205320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What?  The theme was the best part!  (Alas, this just confirms what you said about not missing anything if you tuned out after it...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
The theme was the best part !
( Alas , this just confirms what you said about not missing anything if you tuned out after it... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
The theme was the best part!
(Alas, this just confirms what you said about not missing anything if you tuned out after it...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727924</id>
	<title>Ghostbusters</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263201660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a place in my heart for ghostbusters but unfortunately now it is so 80's we need a more modern ghost busters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a place in my heart for ghostbusters but unfortunately now it is so 80 's we need a more modern ghost busters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a place in my heart for ghostbusters but unfortunately now it is so 80's we need a more modern ghost busters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730170</id>
	<title>Re:UFO - No Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather see more of Star Cops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather see more of Star Cops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather see more of Star Cops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726722</id>
	<title>My favorite</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1263241260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Revenge of the Teenage Vixens from Outer Space"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Revenge of the Teenage Vixens from Outer Space "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Revenge of the Teenage Vixens from Outer Space"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733032</id>
	<title>Re:Dune....Definitely Dune</title>
	<author>MadUndergrad</author>
	<datestamp>1263228600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going for a big flashy spectacle, please don't let them use Dune. It deserves more than that. James Cameron? No.</p><p>You know, I doubt that live action film is right for Dune. Maybe it'd have had a chance with Jodorowsky, but I'm just not seeing it at this point. How about getting a good anime studio to pick it up, turn it into a series. I think each novel could be nicely divided up into a dozen episodes. The guys who did GITS could do it justice, maybe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going for a big flashy spectacle , please do n't let them use Dune .
It deserves more than that .
James Cameron ?
No.You know , I doubt that live action film is right for Dune .
Maybe it 'd have had a chance with Jodorowsky , but I 'm just not seeing it at this point .
How about getting a good anime studio to pick it up , turn it into a series .
I think each novel could be nicely divided up into a dozen episodes .
The guys who did GITS could do it justice , maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going for a big flashy spectacle, please don't let them use Dune.
It deserves more than that.
James Cameron?
No.You know, I doubt that live action film is right for Dune.
Maybe it'd have had a chance with Jodorowsky, but I'm just not seeing it at this point.
How about getting a good anime studio to pick it up, turn it into a series.
I think each novel could be nicely divided up into a dozen episodes.
The guys who did GITS could do it justice, maybe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733192</id>
	<title>Please, not Firefly!</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263229740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please do not 'reboot' Firefly!</p><p>And I'm not saying that because I dislike it. I like it very much, and it is one of those few shows with a special quality resulting from good writing (mostly) and a very realistic between the characters.</p><p>That interaction will not be the same with a 'reboot' unless the same actors are available. If those actors are not available - at least a couple of them to maintain the dynamic - it would make any relaunch a likely failure with existing fans.</p><p>Think of the last (couple) seasons of Stargate SG-1, after Richard Dean Anderson left. The show sucked because what little dynamic SG-1 had was lost by the removal of a pivotal character.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do not 'reboot ' Firefly ! And I 'm not saying that because I dislike it .
I like it very much , and it is one of those few shows with a special quality resulting from good writing ( mostly ) and a very realistic between the characters.That interaction will not be the same with a 'reboot ' unless the same actors are available .
If those actors are not available - at least a couple of them to maintain the dynamic - it would make any relaunch a likely failure with existing fans.Think of the last ( couple ) seasons of Stargate SG-1 , after Richard Dean Anderson left .
The show sucked because what little dynamic SG-1 had was lost by the removal of a pivotal character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please do not 'reboot' Firefly!And I'm not saying that because I dislike it.
I like it very much, and it is one of those few shows with a special quality resulting from good writing (mostly) and a very realistic between the characters.That interaction will not be the same with a 'reboot' unless the same actors are available.
If those actors are not available - at least a couple of them to maintain the dynamic - it would make any relaunch a likely failure with existing fans.Think of the last (couple) seasons of Stargate SG-1, after Richard Dean Anderson left.
The show sucked because what little dynamic SG-1 had was lost by the removal of a pivotal character.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727494</id>
	<title>Reboot!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1263243480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reboot "Reboot"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reboot " Reboot " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reboot "Reboot"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727270</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no more Original Ideas, there are only rehashes of existing ideas, set in places nobody has imagined before.</p><p>This is why I liked Avatar. The plot was a rehash of a couple other movies, done on some alien world.</p><p>Of course, the geeks who didn't like the movie because it was "too spiritual" or failed on some Physics law or whatever, entirely miss the point.</p><p>Avatar did for me in my mid 40's what Star Wars did for me in my teens, it was awesome spectacle to watch. And looking at StarWars today, it seems kind of cheesy, and the plot was, as many have already mentioned, a rehash of other works, just set in an alien "galaxy".</p><p>If you want original, stop watching movies, you'll only be disappointed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no more Original Ideas , there are only rehashes of existing ideas , set in places nobody has imagined before.This is why I liked Avatar .
The plot was a rehash of a couple other movies , done on some alien world.Of course , the geeks who did n't like the movie because it was " too spiritual " or failed on some Physics law or whatever , entirely miss the point.Avatar did for me in my mid 40 's what Star Wars did for me in my teens , it was awesome spectacle to watch .
And looking at StarWars today , it seems kind of cheesy , and the plot was , as many have already mentioned , a rehash of other works , just set in an alien " galaxy " .If you want original , stop watching movies , you 'll only be disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no more Original Ideas, there are only rehashes of existing ideas, set in places nobody has imagined before.This is why I liked Avatar.
The plot was a rehash of a couple other movies, done on some alien world.Of course, the geeks who didn't like the movie because it was "too spiritual" or failed on some Physics law or whatever, entirely miss the point.Avatar did for me in my mid 40's what Star Wars did for me in my teens, it was awesome spectacle to watch.
And looking at StarWars today, it seems kind of cheesy, and the plot was, as many have already mentioned, a rehash of other works, just set in an alien "galaxy".If you want original, stop watching movies, you'll only be disappointed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726810</id>
	<title>Ringworld</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1263241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would make for a couple of <a href="http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=264" title="technovelgy.com">life injections</a> [technovelgy.com].
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would make for a couple of life injections [ technovelgy.com ] .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would make for a couple of life injections [technovelgy.com].
CC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727828</id>
	<title>Muppet Star Wars</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1263201360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Punch it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Punch it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Punch it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</id>
	<title>Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>SirDrinksAlot</author>
	<datestamp>1263240840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reboot should get a Reboot!</p><p>That was a great cartoon.</p><p>Maybe C.O.P.S too!  Fighting crime in a future time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reboot should get a Reboot ! That was a great cartoon.Maybe C.O.P.S too !
Fighting crime in a future time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reboot should get a Reboot!That was a great cartoon.Maybe C.O.P.S too!
Fighting crime in a future time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116</id>
	<title>Star Wars</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1263242520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life</p></div></blockquote><p> Starwars.  Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life Starwars .
Episodes 1 , 2 and 3 especially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life Starwars.
Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730592</id>
	<title>Logans Run?</title>
	<author>Candera</author>
	<datestamp>1263211980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not Renew Logans Run?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not Renew Logans Run ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not Renew Logans Run?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727072</id>
	<title>Re:Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reboot did reboot.  It was the original series finale.  Great show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reboot did reboot .
It was the original series finale .
Great show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reboot did reboot.
It was the original series finale.
Great show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727166</id>
	<title>The Starlost</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1263242640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only show I could really get behind a reboot (even after the successful reboots lately) would be the Starlost.  And the reason for that is that it didn't have a proper chance the first go round.</p><p>Get Ellison behind it for real and it would be a great show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only show I could really get behind a reboot ( even after the successful reboots lately ) would be the Starlost .
And the reason for that is that it did n't have a proper chance the first go round.Get Ellison behind it for real and it would be a great show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only show I could really get behind a reboot (even after the successful reboots lately) would be the Starlost.
And the reason for that is that it didn't have a proper chance the first go round.Get Ellison behind it for real and it would be a great show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728244</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1263202800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, what about this?</p><p>Even in the real world, we sometimes see cases of people that just go nuts, and even spread that craziness to others.  It's not unreasonable to assume that, given long periods of isolation and such, a few guys might go crazy on their own, and essentially become Reavers--but their craziness doesn't spread much and dies out because the "host" dies off too soon (kind of like how some diseases don't spread far because they kill their hosts too fast).</p><p>Then, let's say that Pax did indeed trigger the start of the Reavers in large numbers, numbers enough to sustain themselves through Stockholm syndrome (like the poor guy in the series) or simply making some victims go crazy like that just to survive.  So in that case, the Pax starts them off, but isn't a necessary condition to <i>continue</i> the Reaver line, such as it is.</p><p>(note:  I am not saying that it's a pathogen or something physical that infects, just that it spreads like one)</p><p>Sound plausible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , what about this ? Even in the real world , we sometimes see cases of people that just go nuts , and even spread that craziness to others .
It 's not unreasonable to assume that , given long periods of isolation and such , a few guys might go crazy on their own , and essentially become Reavers--but their craziness does n't spread much and dies out because the " host " dies off too soon ( kind of like how some diseases do n't spread far because they kill their hosts too fast ) .Then , let 's say that Pax did indeed trigger the start of the Reavers in large numbers , numbers enough to sustain themselves through Stockholm syndrome ( like the poor guy in the series ) or simply making some victims go crazy like that just to survive .
So in that case , the Pax starts them off , but is n't a necessary condition to continue the Reaver line , such as it is .
( note : I am not saying that it 's a pathogen or something physical that infects , just that it spreads like one ) Sound plausible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, what about this?Even in the real world, we sometimes see cases of people that just go nuts, and even spread that craziness to others.
It's not unreasonable to assume that, given long periods of isolation and such, a few guys might go crazy on their own, and essentially become Reavers--but their craziness doesn't spread much and dies out because the "host" dies off too soon (kind of like how some diseases don't spread far because they kill their hosts too fast).Then, let's say that Pax did indeed trigger the start of the Reavers in large numbers, numbers enough to sustain themselves through Stockholm syndrome (like the poor guy in the series) or simply making some victims go crazy like that just to survive.
So in that case, the Pax starts them off, but isn't a necessary condition to continue the Reaver line, such as it is.
(note:  I am not saying that it's a pathogen or something physical that infects, just that it spreads like one)Sound plausible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729188</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1263206100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too. Perhaps we could make a new enemy?</p></div><p>You're right.  Hating Microsoft is like hating the Ottoman Empire or Prussia today.  They're irrelevant.  The real threat today is Larry and Sergie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole " Evil Bill " thing got old too .
Perhaps we could make a new enemy ? You 're right .
Hating Microsoft is like hating the Ottoman Empire or Prussia today .
They 're irrelevant .
The real threat today is Larry and Sergie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too.
Perhaps we could make a new enemy?You're right.
Hating Microsoft is like hating the Ottoman Empire or Prussia today.
They're irrelevant.
The real threat today is Larry and Sergie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729720</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1263208140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honor Harrington by Weber anyone?  I mean come on series was almost born for movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honor Harrington by Weber anyone ?
I mean come on series was almost born for movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honor Harrington by Weber anyone?
I mean come on series was almost born for movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732020</id>
	<title>The Stainless Steel Rat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget reboots lets get something new, Harry Harrison's SSR series would be awesome as a TV Mini Series and would have mass appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget reboots lets get something new , Harry Harrison 's SSR series would be awesome as a TV Mini Series and would have mass appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget reboots lets get something new, Harry Harrison's SSR series would be awesome as a TV Mini Series and would have mass appeal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728948</id>
	<title>Re:Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>Harin\_Teb</author>
	<datestamp>1263205260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interestingly enough (from the wiki article on reboot)

"On June 1, 2008, it was announced that there will be a trilogy of ReBoot films coming to theaters. Jon Cooksey was assigned to write the script for the first film, but as of August 2008, he was dropped due to Rainmaker deciding to take a different direction with the story. At this time, it is unknown who will replace him.[10] The films are expected to follow a different story from the comic, but the overall plan is to continue the methodology in terms of engaging the fans.[11]

The movie is currently listed as in development on the IMDB website. It is currently listed for release in 2010.

A teaser trailer for the film was released on October 5, on Rainmaker's official site."

The current production company that owns the rights to "ReBoot" bought out Mainframe Inc. (creator of ReBoot) explicitly to get the rights to the show.  Although the current crop of movies may be closer to duke nukem forever than is desirable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly enough ( from the wiki article on reboot ) " On June 1 , 2008 , it was announced that there will be a trilogy of ReBoot films coming to theaters .
Jon Cooksey was assigned to write the script for the first film , but as of August 2008 , he was dropped due to Rainmaker deciding to take a different direction with the story .
At this time , it is unknown who will replace him .
[ 10 ] The films are expected to follow a different story from the comic , but the overall plan is to continue the methodology in terms of engaging the fans .
[ 11 ] The movie is currently listed as in development on the IMDB website .
It is currently listed for release in 2010 .
A teaser trailer for the film was released on October 5 , on Rainmaker 's official site .
" The current production company that owns the rights to " ReBoot " bought out Mainframe Inc. ( creator of ReBoot ) explicitly to get the rights to the show .
Although the current crop of movies may be closer to duke nukem forever than is desirable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly enough (from the wiki article on reboot)

"On June 1, 2008, it was announced that there will be a trilogy of ReBoot films coming to theaters.
Jon Cooksey was assigned to write the script for the first film, but as of August 2008, he was dropped due to Rainmaker deciding to take a different direction with the story.
At this time, it is unknown who will replace him.
[10] The films are expected to follow a different story from the comic, but the overall plan is to continue the methodology in terms of engaging the fans.
[11]

The movie is currently listed as in development on the IMDB website.
It is currently listed for release in 2010.
A teaser trailer for the film was released on October 5, on Rainmaker's official site.
"

The current production company that owns the rights to "ReBoot" bought out Mainframe Inc. (creator of ReBoot) explicitly to get the rights to the show.
Although the current crop of movies may be closer to duke nukem forever than is desirable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</id>
	<title>Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1263240840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What part of Firefly do you think needed a reboot?  The whole point of these reboots is to drop the decades of cruft that have dogged down a series and made it impossible to create anything new thanks to all of the baggage.  Firefly has a (too) short lived TV run and a movie.  There's not really any baggage to drop.
<br> <br>
The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What part of Firefly do you think needed a reboot ?
The whole point of these reboots is to drop the decades of cruft that have dogged down a series and made it impossible to create anything new thanks to all of the baggage .
Firefly has a ( too ) short lived TV run and a movie .
There 's not really any baggage to drop .
The only thing I 'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What part of Firefly do you think needed a reboot?
The whole point of these reboots is to drop the decades of cruft that have dogged down a series and made it impossible to create anything new thanks to all of the baggage.
Firefly has a (too) short lived TV run and a movie.
There's not really any baggage to drop.
The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728622</id>
	<title>Dune? Star Wars?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263204120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm amazed nobody has mentioned Dune yet.  Or Star Wars.</p><p>Alien?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm amazed nobody has mentioned Dune yet .
Or Star Wars.Alien ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm amazed nobody has mentioned Dune yet.
Or Star Wars.Alien?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30739202</id>
	<title>Have Mercy, Start with Season 5</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1263319320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God love JMS, and B5 1-4 were the best TV ever, but, man Season 5 stunk of rotten fish eggs.  And flower children.  And Commander Supermodels.</p><p>At least he sobered up* for Crusade.</p><p>* high on brilliance and success, not drugs, necessarily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God love JMS , and B5 1-4 were the best TV ever , but , man Season 5 stunk of rotten fish eggs .
And flower children .
And Commander Supermodels.At least he sobered up * for Crusade .
* high on brilliance and success , not drugs , necessarily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God love JMS, and B5 1-4 were the best TV ever, but, man Season 5 stunk of rotten fish eggs.
And flower children.
And Commander Supermodels.At least he sobered up* for Crusade.
* high on brilliance and success, not drugs, necessarily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731548</id>
	<title>Tons!</title>
	<author>rfernand79</author>
	<datestamp>1263217500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, The Day of the Triffids, Chocky, The Tomorrow People,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash Gordon , Buck Rogers , The Day of the Triffids , Chocky , The Tomorrow People , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, The Day of the Triffids, Chocky, The Tomorrow People, ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732364</id>
	<title>Re:A colder war</title>
	<author>cranq</author>
	<datestamp>1263223080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just read this before Christmas and I agree, it's a skillfully done blend of alternate history, ancient terrors, and freaky tech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read this before Christmas and I agree , it 's a skillfully done blend of alternate history , ancient terrors , and freaky tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read this before Christmas and I agree, it's a skillfully done blend of alternate history, ancient terrors, and freaky tech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728906</id>
	<title>Zelasny's Amber Novels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263205140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, thats the ticket</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , thats the ticket</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, thats the ticket</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726636</id>
	<title>reboots are so 2009</title>
	<author>saiha</author>
	<datestamp>1263240960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets get some fresh stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets get some fresh stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets get some fresh stories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727214</id>
	<title>Movies based on R.A. Lafferty short stories</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1263242760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>R.A. Lafferty is a "different" kind of SF author. Too odd even for many geeks, Lafferty stories are to science fiction what Salvia Divinorum is to hallucinogens. Wildly different and completely disruptive. Great creative fodder there just waiting to be mined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>R.A. Lafferty is a " different " kind of SF author .
Too odd even for many geeks , Lafferty stories are to science fiction what Salvia Divinorum is to hallucinogens .
Wildly different and completely disruptive .
Great creative fodder there just waiting to be mined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>R.A. Lafferty is a "different" kind of SF author.
Too odd even for many geeks, Lafferty stories are to science fiction what Salvia Divinorum is to hallucinogens.
Wildly different and completely disruptive.
Great creative fodder there just waiting to be mined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727262</id>
	<title>Flash! Oh-oh</title>
	<author>Caption Wierd</author>
	<datestamp>1263242880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon? Neither has had a movie or show that lived up to the original newspaper comics for originality or imagination. (Yes, I see the oxymoronic combination of 'reboot' and 'originality'.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon ?
Neither has had a movie or show that lived up to the original newspaper comics for originality or imagination .
( Yes , I see the oxymoronic combination of 'reboot ' and 'originality' .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon?
Neither has had a movie or show that lived up to the original newspaper comics for originality or imagination.
(Yes, I see the oxymoronic combination of 'reboot' and 'originality'.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728852</id>
	<title>There's no such thing as a good reboot</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1263204960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every reboot I've ever seen was a total suckfest.  They seem to remove anything good from the source material and give us something dark and totally stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every reboot I 've ever seen was a total suckfest .
They seem to remove anything good from the source material and give us something dark and totally stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every reboot I've ever seen was a total suckfest.
They seem to remove anything good from the source material and give us something dark and totally stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729058</id>
	<title>Other new ones</title>
	<author>it\_guy\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1263205740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm for new ones as well.  Most reboots are lame, even if they benefit from modern CGI/etc.  I saw The Clash of The Titans is about to be rebooted and thought, What a shame.</p><p>How about The Foundation series?  What about The Amber series?  Thomas Covenant?  Yes, I'm definitely bleeding into the fantastical but that's another point - there are tons of solid pieces out there that have not been done, that probably couldn't have been done until now.</p><p>I'm still waiting for Atlas Shrugged too.  Perhaps it is a simple drama piece and not Sci Fi or Fantasy but it could be seen as speculative fiction no matter how on the money it is these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm for new ones as well .
Most reboots are lame , even if they benefit from modern CGI/etc .
I saw The Clash of The Titans is about to be rebooted and thought , What a shame.How about The Foundation series ?
What about The Amber series ?
Thomas Covenant ?
Yes , I 'm definitely bleeding into the fantastical but that 's another point - there are tons of solid pieces out there that have not been done , that probably could n't have been done until now.I 'm still waiting for Atlas Shrugged too .
Perhaps it is a simple drama piece and not Sci Fi or Fantasy but it could be seen as speculative fiction no matter how on the money it is these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm for new ones as well.
Most reboots are lame, even if they benefit from modern CGI/etc.
I saw The Clash of The Titans is about to be rebooted and thought, What a shame.How about The Foundation series?
What about The Amber series?
Thomas Covenant?
Yes, I'm definitely bleeding into the fantastical but that's another point - there are tons of solid pieces out there that have not been done, that probably couldn't have been done until now.I'm still waiting for Atlas Shrugged too.
Perhaps it is a simple drama piece and not Sci Fi or Fantasy but it could be seen as speculative fiction no matter how on the money it is these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733118</id>
	<title>More Good, Well Written Sci Fi Please</title>
	<author>this\_is\_art</author>
	<datestamp>1263229200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really like a lot of the suggestions, but my personal TV favorite is still Babylon 5.  Whatever gets rebooted however, I want to see the result of good writing and good production quality.
Cheers</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really like a lot of the suggestions , but my personal TV favorite is still Babylon 5 .
Whatever gets rebooted however , I want to see the result of good writing and good production quality .
Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really like a lot of the suggestions, but my personal TV favorite is still Babylon 5.
Whatever gets rebooted however, I want to see the result of good writing and good production quality.
Cheers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734614</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>aug24</author>
	<datestamp>1263291060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You suggesting you, me, and everyone in between should, after ten years or so, go and get a life?!</p><p>Nah, it'd be rubbish.</p><p>Just.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You suggesting you , me , and everyone in between should , after ten years or so , go and get a life ?
! Nah , it 'd be rubbish.Just .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You suggesting you, me, and everyone in between should, after ten years or so, go and get a life?
!Nah, it'd be rubbish.Just.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798</id>
	<title>Max Headroom</title>
	<author>Mashhaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263241440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The original was prophetic in more ways than I can count, and groundbreaking in many ways while being entertaining.

I would love to see what they'd come up with this time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original was prophetic in more ways than I can count , and groundbreaking in many ways while being entertaining .
I would love to see what they 'd come up with this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original was prophetic in more ways than I can count, and groundbreaking in many ways while being entertaining.
I would love to see what they'd come up with this time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727248</id>
	<title>Space 1999</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1263242820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That one had the potential to Rock really hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That one had the potential to Rock really hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That one had the potential to Rock really hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727024</id>
	<title>Time Tunnel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow...just dated myself on that one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow...just dated myself on that one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow...just dated myself on that one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727802</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1263201240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, un-kill Wash and Shepard Book.  Although, honestly, a 7 year run could take place in the intervening year between the end of the series and movie.  Not sure a sane genius class River would improve a continued show any.</p><p>Miranda is easy to accept, though.  She's not a planet that's forgotten or overlooked, not a perturbation on plots or anything.  She was a young colony that was still new to people's minds.  Mal even knew "terraforming didn't take or somesuch".  She was publicly known to be a failure, and even the mangnitude of the failure was known.  The nature of the failure was the only unknown.</p><p>Human history is filled with similar misdirected failures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , un-kill Wash and Shepard Book .
Although , honestly , a 7 year run could take place in the intervening year between the end of the series and movie .
Not sure a sane genius class River would improve a continued show any.Miranda is easy to accept , though .
She 's not a planet that 's forgotten or overlooked , not a perturbation on plots or anything .
She was a young colony that was still new to people 's minds .
Mal even knew " terraforming did n't take or somesuch " .
She was publicly known to be a failure , and even the mangnitude of the failure was known .
The nature of the failure was the only unknown.Human history is filled with similar misdirected failures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, un-kill Wash and Shepard Book.
Although, honestly, a 7 year run could take place in the intervening year between the end of the series and movie.
Not sure a sane genius class River would improve a continued show any.Miranda is easy to accept, though.
She's not a planet that's forgotten or overlooked, not a perturbation on plots or anything.
She was a young colony that was still new to people's minds.
Mal even knew "terraforming didn't take or somesuch".
She was publicly known to be a failure, and even the mangnitude of the failure was known.
The nature of the failure was the only unknown.Human history is filled with similar misdirected failures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729016</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>Your.Master</author>
	<datestamp>1263205560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Devil's advocate:</p><p>Couldn't almost all of the planets in fact be moons, which would therefore be in essentially the same solar orbit?</p><p>Hypothetically, couldn't they also be around a series of planets with, cosmically speaking, relatively close orbits to one another around a star with a relatively wide habitable belt?  It seems that even in our Solar system, Venus, Earth, Earth's moon, Mars, and maybe some Jovian moons might all be terraformable so at least some of the planet is habitable, by sufficiently advanced aliens with sufficient time and a shitload of resources, which seems to be a precondition anyway.  Venus is far too hot but that's atmospheric to a large extent.  Mars is too cold (to a less severe degree), but that's also atmospheric.  There are other issues with both planets, and all the other moons, obviously.  It seems unlikely to me that the Sol system is the most suitable system for humanity, other than Earth itself of course by virtue of us having evolved there, so they could go to a system with planets where terraforming is a little less difficult, too.</p><p>Might be an unlikely solar system, but if I were evacuating an overpopulated Earth on generation ships, that's the sort of solar system I'd head to.</p><p>Also, why is it that Pax-created reavers can't make more reavers through torture (I admit, this bothers me too).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Devil 's advocate : Could n't almost all of the planets in fact be moons , which would therefore be in essentially the same solar orbit ? Hypothetically , could n't they also be around a series of planets with , cosmically speaking , relatively close orbits to one another around a star with a relatively wide habitable belt ?
It seems that even in our Solar system , Venus , Earth , Earth 's moon , Mars , and maybe some Jovian moons might all be terraformable so at least some of the planet is habitable , by sufficiently advanced aliens with sufficient time and a shitload of resources , which seems to be a precondition anyway .
Venus is far too hot but that 's atmospheric to a large extent .
Mars is too cold ( to a less severe degree ) , but that 's also atmospheric .
There are other issues with both planets , and all the other moons , obviously .
It seems unlikely to me that the Sol system is the most suitable system for humanity , other than Earth itself of course by virtue of us having evolved there , so they could go to a system with planets where terraforming is a little less difficult , too.Might be an unlikely solar system , but if I were evacuating an overpopulated Earth on generation ships , that 's the sort of solar system I 'd head to.Also , why is it that Pax-created reavers ca n't make more reavers through torture ( I admit , this bothers me too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Devil's advocate:Couldn't almost all of the planets in fact be moons, which would therefore be in essentially the same solar orbit?Hypothetically, couldn't they also be around a series of planets with, cosmically speaking, relatively close orbits to one another around a star with a relatively wide habitable belt?
It seems that even in our Solar system, Venus, Earth, Earth's moon, Mars, and maybe some Jovian moons might all be terraformable so at least some of the planet is habitable, by sufficiently advanced aliens with sufficient time and a shitload of resources, which seems to be a precondition anyway.
Venus is far too hot but that's atmospheric to a large extent.
Mars is too cold (to a less severe degree), but that's also atmospheric.
There are other issues with both planets, and all the other moons, obviously.
It seems unlikely to me that the Sol system is the most suitable system for humanity, other than Earth itself of course by virtue of us having evolved there, so they could go to a system with planets where terraforming is a little less difficult, too.Might be an unlikely solar system, but if I were evacuating an overpopulated Earth on generation ships, that's the sort of solar system I'd head to.Also, why is it that Pax-created reavers can't make more reavers through torture (I admit, this bothers me too).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729162</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263206040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes!  Let's have a reimagined <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geeks\_in\_Space" title="wikipedia.org">Geeks in Space!</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes !
Let 's have a reimagined Geeks in Space !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!
Let's have a reimagined Geeks in Space!
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727506</id>
	<title>well..</title>
	<author>Theodore</author>
	<datestamp>1263243540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do agree with the people pushing Blakes 7.<br>It's a crime that that series is so forgotten.</p><p>Then again, I'd like to see more than 1 or 2 eps in an entire series of star trek from the Spock's beard EEEEEEvil universe.<br>Make is a series.<br>There's plenty of space there to make the Klingons and Romulans scream "WTF?  STOP!"</p><p>If you want original though, I'd like to see McDevitt's "Hutchins" series, or Reynolds' "Revelation Space" series filmed...  (Galactic North is all short stories, which should fit in an 'outer limits' format easily).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do agree with the people pushing Blakes 7.It 's a crime that that series is so forgotten.Then again , I 'd like to see more than 1 or 2 eps in an entire series of star trek from the Spock 's beard EEEEEEvil universe.Make is a series.There 's plenty of space there to make the Klingons and Romulans scream " WTF ?
STOP ! " If you want original though , I 'd like to see McDevitt 's " Hutchins " series , or Reynolds ' " Revelation Space " series filmed... ( Galactic North is all short stories , which should fit in an 'outer limits ' format easily ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do agree with the people pushing Blakes 7.It's a crime that that series is so forgotten.Then again, I'd like to see more than 1 or 2 eps in an entire series of star trek from the Spock's beard EEEEEEvil universe.Make is a series.There's plenty of space there to make the Klingons and Romulans scream "WTF?
STOP!"If you want original though, I'd like to see McDevitt's "Hutchins" series, or Reynolds' "Revelation Space" series filmed...  (Galactic North is all short stories, which should fit in an 'outer limits' format easily).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</id>
	<title>Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>Artifex</author>
	<datestamp>1263241260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Princess Ardala, Col. Wilma Deering, and little robots that want to be your best friend.<br>What more could any nerd boy want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Princess Ardala , Col. Wilma Deering , and little robots that want to be your best friend.What more could any nerd boy want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Princess Ardala, Col. Wilma Deering, and little robots that want to be your best friend.What more could any nerd boy want?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727918</id>
	<title>Star Wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Star Wars, clearly. As long as George Lucas is let nowhere near it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Wars , clearly .
As long as George Lucas is let nowhere near it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Wars, clearly.
As long as George Lucas is let nowhere near it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731778</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Anci3nt of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1263218940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are we all thinking the new series should take place after the movie? The movie did end the story, as it was meant to.</p><p>Firefly as a series is something you can continue with further events <em>before</em> those of the movie. Further explore the link between book and the alliance. Keep unpacking River. Include the odd clash between Jane and the others.</p><p>The real joy of Firefly is you have a universe combining sci-fi with a western and opening up options for just about any survival mission type plot (think Train). You can always chuck in more bad guys (who aren't really bad) and allies (who don't really help) to keep the gritty, everyone out for themselves feel that made the series so enjoyable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we all thinking the new series should take place after the movie ?
The movie did end the story , as it was meant to.Firefly as a series is something you can continue with further events before those of the movie .
Further explore the link between book and the alliance .
Keep unpacking River .
Include the odd clash between Jane and the others.The real joy of Firefly is you have a universe combining sci-fi with a western and opening up options for just about any survival mission type plot ( think Train ) .
You can always chuck in more bad guys ( who are n't really bad ) and allies ( who do n't really help ) to keep the gritty , everyone out for themselves feel that made the series so enjoyable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we all thinking the new series should take place after the movie?
The movie did end the story, as it was meant to.Firefly as a series is something you can continue with further events before those of the movie.
Further explore the link between book and the alliance.
Keep unpacking River.
Include the odd clash between Jane and the others.The real joy of Firefly is you have a universe combining sci-fi with a western and opening up options for just about any survival mission type plot (think Train).
You can always chuck in more bad guys (who aren't really bad) and allies (who don't really help) to keep the gritty, everyone out for themselves feel that made the series so enjoyable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30738306</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1263316380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe Josh Whedon said that the movie Serenity was the proposed finale of the show from the very beginning.  He had always had a planet encircled by reaver-space in his over arching plot line.  The annihilation of the human populace and the ability for the Alliance to cover it up was part of the Alliance's aura of evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Josh Whedon said that the movie Serenity was the proposed finale of the show from the very beginning .
He had always had a planet encircled by reaver-space in his over arching plot line .
The annihilation of the human populace and the ability for the Alliance to cover it up was part of the Alliance 's aura of evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Josh Whedon said that the movie Serenity was the proposed finale of the show from the very beginning.
He had always had a planet encircled by reaver-space in his over arching plot line.
The annihilation of the human populace and the ability for the Alliance to cover it up was part of the Alliance's aura of evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729534</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>32771</author>
	<datestamp>1263207420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity</p><p>Unicode support would do maybe? Multilingual Slashdot even? That would fit in nicely with that other dimension of diversity idle was supposed to add<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The cast of Slashdot had too little diversityUnicode support would do maybe ?
Multilingual Slashdot even ?
That would fit in nicely with that other dimension of diversity idle was supposed to add ; ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The cast of Slashdot had too little diversityUnicode support would do maybe?
Multilingual Slashdot even?
That would fit in nicely with that other dimension of diversity idle was supposed to add ;).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729360</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>OverZealous.com</author>
	<datestamp>1263206760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worse than talk, supposedly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan\_Simmons#Movie\_adaptation" title="wikipedia.org">they are planning on making a single movie out of both Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion</a> [wikipedia.org].  There are at least 6 or 7 tales told in those two books, each one would almost be capable of filling 2 hours.</p><p>I think the only way the Hyperion Cantos could make out of book form would be a long-running serial.  Something with a really decent production team, that allowed each character time to build up the story.</p><p>Of course, one major problem with that is these stories are fairly depressing.  Especially the 5 framed stories in Hyperion.  Nothing good happens to anyone, really.*</p><p>(And then they are apparently planning on making a single movie out of Illium and Olympos, probably two of the most confusing [and amazing] stories I have ever read.  I truly don't understand how that book could be made into a movie.)</p><p>-----<br>
* I just received Hyperion and Fall for Christmas, and I'm currently re-reading Fall of Hyperion.  I had completely forgotten how the end of the first book just hangs there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worse than talk , supposedly they are planning on making a single movie out of both Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion [ wikipedia.org ] .
There are at least 6 or 7 tales told in those two books , each one would almost be capable of filling 2 hours.I think the only way the Hyperion Cantos could make out of book form would be a long-running serial .
Something with a really decent production team , that allowed each character time to build up the story.Of course , one major problem with that is these stories are fairly depressing .
Especially the 5 framed stories in Hyperion .
Nothing good happens to anyone , really .
* ( And then they are apparently planning on making a single movie out of Illium and Olympos , probably two of the most confusing [ and amazing ] stories I have ever read .
I truly do n't understand how that book could be made into a movie .
) ----- * I just received Hyperion and Fall for Christmas , and I 'm currently re-reading Fall of Hyperion .
I had completely forgotten how the end of the first book just hangs there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worse than talk, supposedly they are planning on making a single movie out of both Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion [wikipedia.org].
There are at least 6 or 7 tales told in those two books, each one would almost be capable of filling 2 hours.I think the only way the Hyperion Cantos could make out of book form would be a long-running serial.
Something with a really decent production team, that allowed each character time to build up the story.Of course, one major problem with that is these stories are fairly depressing.
Especially the 5 framed stories in Hyperion.
Nothing good happens to anyone, really.
*(And then they are apparently planning on making a single movie out of Illium and Olympos, probably two of the most confusing [and amazing] stories I have ever read.
I truly don't understand how that book could be made into a movie.
)-----
* I just received Hyperion and Fall for Christmas, and I'm currently re-reading Fall of Hyperion.
I had completely forgotten how the end of the first book just hangs there!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730272</id>
	<title>Starlost for the Win</title>
	<author>rtrifts</author>
	<datestamp>1263210480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Series prime for a reboot?</p><p>#1 Starlost: A crappy Canadian 70's Saturday morning kids SF show. Based on a Harlan Ellison story/script. There is a lot to work with here. This could work very well.</p><p>For those unfamiliar with the original - there is a generation ship out of control headed owards a star. The ship is a massive nework of geodesic domes.  Each dome is essentially its own culture. The series' heroes are looking for the bridge and a way of saving the ship. Most dome/cultures are oblivious and do not even realize they are on a ship in the first place.</p><p>#2 Logan's Run:  Another novel turned into a 70s movie that spawned a short lived series that could work. I do think it would work better as a one-off movie, however.</p><p>#3 Micronauts: The toys were cheesey but the original comic series #1 by Marvel had huge potential. This could work very well.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Series prime for a reboot ? # 1 Starlost : A crappy Canadian 70 's Saturday morning kids SF show .
Based on a Harlan Ellison story/script .
There is a lot to work with here .
This could work very well.For those unfamiliar with the original - there is a generation ship out of control headed owards a star .
The ship is a massive nework of geodesic domes .
Each dome is essentially its own culture .
The series ' heroes are looking for the bridge and a way of saving the ship .
Most dome/cultures are oblivious and do not even realize they are on a ship in the first place. # 2 Logan 's Run : Another novel turned into a 70s movie that spawned a short lived series that could work .
I do think it would work better as a one-off movie , however. # 3 Micronauts : The toys were cheesey but the original comic series # 1 by Marvel had huge potential .
This could work very well .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Series prime for a reboot?#1 Starlost: A crappy Canadian 70's Saturday morning kids SF show.
Based on a Harlan Ellison story/script.
There is a lot to work with here.
This could work very well.For those unfamiliar with the original - there is a generation ship out of control headed owards a star.
The ship is a massive nework of geodesic domes.
Each dome is essentially its own culture.
The series' heroes are looking for the bridge and a way of saving the ship.
Most dome/cultures are oblivious and do not even realize they are on a ship in the first place.#2 Logan's Run:  Another novel turned into a 70s movie that spawned a short lived series that could work.
I do think it would work better as a one-off movie, however.#3 Micronauts: The toys were cheesey but the original comic series #1 by Marvel had huge potential.
This could work very well.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726802</id>
	<title>A colder war</title>
	<author>oh2</author>
	<datestamp>1263241440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Charles Strosss <a href="http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm" title="infinityplus.co.uk">"A Colder War"</a> [infinityplus.co.uk] short story has enough material to drive several seasons of Ctulhu-esque cold war goodness. If you havent read it, do.

Does it get any better ? Entities from the abyss, cold war politics and lots of interesting historical characters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Charles Strosss " A Colder War " [ infinityplus.co.uk ] short story has enough material to drive several seasons of Ctulhu-esque cold war goodness .
If you havent read it , do .
Does it get any better ?
Entities from the abyss , cold war politics and lots of interesting historical characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Charles Strosss "A Colder War" [infinityplus.co.uk] short story has enough material to drive several seasons of Ctulhu-esque cold war goodness.
If you havent read it, do.
Does it get any better ?
Entities from the abyss, cold war politics and lots of interesting historical characters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729878</id>
	<title>Twilight Zone?! Outer Limits?!</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1263208680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits were all self-contained episodes. How on earth can you do a 're-boot' of these? Re-make the original series with a modern spin?  I don't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits were all self-contained episodes .
How on earth can you do a 're-boot ' of these ?
Re-make the original series with a modern spin ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits were all self-contained episodes.
How on earth can you do a 're-boot' of these?
Re-make the original series with a modern spin?
I don't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732440</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1263223620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody ever said the war even had a single battle on Miranda, so let's drop that paragraph.  "Uninhabitable.  Terraforming didn't hold, somesuch, a few settlers died" "Was it right before the war?" "I believe so." (1:04:55)</p><p>Miranda was basically just opening up.  "There was a call for settlers..."  Not much of a population, even if a few cities were set up.  Based on the number of Reavers, it would appear that at most we're talking about a few tens of thousands of people -- hardly enough to justify a lot of interplanetary smugglers to add it to any kind of regular route.  Even if it were a few million on the edge of the solar system, the label "uninhabitable" would probably keep away all those who required air to breathe.  Besides, if you had a bunch of people on the news talking about how all their relatives in St. Louis were suddenly not answering their phones or writing back, and the government said the sanitary system had suddenly failed and wasn't worth repairing, would you go investigate for yourself?  You might notice it on a navigator's map and explicitly go around it.</p><p>Miranda never went unnoticed.  To use your Atlantis metaphor, it'd be like finding out Atlantis was this one island that was on all the navigational charts all along, but not on any of the population charts.  Oh, and the map maker drew a big death head on it and a little nuclear warning next to it.  It's there, you can go around it, and you don't come up with any reasons to visit.  Take a look at 1:04:33 or 1:05:30 and tell me the planet is missing.</p><p>Now, if you'd like to concentrate on Wash saying "There's nothing about it on the Cortex.  History, astronomy, it's not in there", you have to listen to Mal's response -- "Half of writing history is hiding the truth".  Heck, I didnt even know about Haumea or Makemake until I went looking for them specifically and I can't tell you how long I've peered into the night sky with binoculars.</p><p>These days, excluding Pluto from a lot of those things would be acceptable -- it's been demoted from a planet.  Or is that where Osama bin Laden is really hiding?</p><p>Firefly wasn't your thing.  Fine.  I get it.  It's not for everybody.  Just don't pick it apart out of ignorance.  Even if a suspension of disbelief is necessary, getting into a war of trivia with a fan isn't too smart.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  You'd be better off asking about the energy required to leave orbit and then safely land as often as they do and asking where and how all the fuel is stored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody ever said the war even had a single battle on Miranda , so let 's drop that paragraph .
" Uninhabitable. Terraforming did n't hold , somesuch , a few settlers died " " Was it right before the war ?
" " I believe so .
" ( 1 : 04 : 55 ) Miranda was basically just opening up .
" There was a call for settlers... " Not much of a population , even if a few cities were set up .
Based on the number of Reavers , it would appear that at most we 're talking about a few tens of thousands of people -- hardly enough to justify a lot of interplanetary smugglers to add it to any kind of regular route .
Even if it were a few million on the edge of the solar system , the label " uninhabitable " would probably keep away all those who required air to breathe .
Besides , if you had a bunch of people on the news talking about how all their relatives in St. Louis were suddenly not answering their phones or writing back , and the government said the sanitary system had suddenly failed and was n't worth repairing , would you go investigate for yourself ?
You might notice it on a navigator 's map and explicitly go around it.Miranda never went unnoticed .
To use your Atlantis metaphor , it 'd be like finding out Atlantis was this one island that was on all the navigational charts all along , but not on any of the population charts .
Oh , and the map maker drew a big death head on it and a little nuclear warning next to it .
It 's there , you can go around it , and you do n't come up with any reasons to visit .
Take a look at 1 : 04 : 33 or 1 : 05 : 30 and tell me the planet is missing.Now , if you 'd like to concentrate on Wash saying " There 's nothing about it on the Cortex .
History , astronomy , it 's not in there " , you have to listen to Mal 's response -- " Half of writing history is hiding the truth " .
Heck , I didnt even know about Haumea or Makemake until I went looking for them specifically and I ca n't tell you how long I 've peered into the night sky with binoculars.These days , excluding Pluto from a lot of those things would be acceptable -- it 's been demoted from a planet .
Or is that where Osama bin Laden is really hiding ? Firefly was n't your thing .
Fine. I get it .
It 's not for everybody .
Just do n't pick it apart out of ignorance .
Even if a suspension of disbelief is necessary , getting into a war of trivia with a fan is n't too smart .
: ) You 'd be better off asking about the energy required to leave orbit and then safely land as often as they do and asking where and how all the fuel is stored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody ever said the war even had a single battle on Miranda, so let's drop that paragraph.
"Uninhabitable.  Terraforming didn't hold, somesuch, a few settlers died" "Was it right before the war?
" "I believe so.
" (1:04:55)Miranda was basically just opening up.
"There was a call for settlers..."  Not much of a population, even if a few cities were set up.
Based on the number of Reavers, it would appear that at most we're talking about a few tens of thousands of people -- hardly enough to justify a lot of interplanetary smugglers to add it to any kind of regular route.
Even if it were a few million on the edge of the solar system, the label "uninhabitable" would probably keep away all those who required air to breathe.
Besides, if you had a bunch of people on the news talking about how all their relatives in St. Louis were suddenly not answering their phones or writing back, and the government said the sanitary system had suddenly failed and wasn't worth repairing, would you go investigate for yourself?
You might notice it on a navigator's map and explicitly go around it.Miranda never went unnoticed.
To use your Atlantis metaphor, it'd be like finding out Atlantis was this one island that was on all the navigational charts all along, but not on any of the population charts.
Oh, and the map maker drew a big death head on it and a little nuclear warning next to it.
It's there, you can go around it, and you don't come up with any reasons to visit.
Take a look at 1:04:33 or 1:05:30 and tell me the planet is missing.Now, if you'd like to concentrate on Wash saying "There's nothing about it on the Cortex.
History, astronomy, it's not in there", you have to listen to Mal's response -- "Half of writing history is hiding the truth".
Heck, I didnt even know about Haumea or Makemake until I went looking for them specifically and I can't tell you how long I've peered into the night sky with binoculars.These days, excluding Pluto from a lot of those things would be acceptable -- it's been demoted from a planet.
Or is that where Osama bin Laden is really hiding?Firefly wasn't your thing.
Fine.  I get it.
It's not for everybody.
Just don't pick it apart out of ignorance.
Even if a suspension of disbelief is necessary, getting into a war of trivia with a fan isn't too smart.
:)  You'd be better off asking about the energy required to leave orbit and then safely land as often as they do and asking where and how all the fuel is stored.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729032</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1263205680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Why have a reboot when there's obviously so much great new stuff out there? Not sure about Doctorow or Stross's stuff, but there are plenty out there. Just look at something like Flashforward that came from Robert J. Sawer's novel of the same name, which is shaping up to be a pretty decent science fiction series.</p><p>The only reason I can think of that reboots are favoured is because the studios probably already own the rights to the story. Plus, there's the added bonus of a captured audience that are older with more money to spend who remember the original show from their teens, which makes them prime marketing material. In other words, they view it as safe, and therefore they don't have to take major risks on it.</p><p>Probably the only "reboot" I may be in favour of would be a live action series based on the Stand Alone Complex series from the Ghost in the Shell world. Done well, that has the potential to be brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Why have a reboot when there 's obviously so much great new stuff out there ?
Not sure about Doctorow or Stross 's stuff , but there are plenty out there .
Just look at something like Flashforward that came from Robert J. Sawer 's novel of the same name , which is shaping up to be a pretty decent science fiction series.The only reason I can think of that reboots are favoured is because the studios probably already own the rights to the story .
Plus , there 's the added bonus of a captured audience that are older with more money to spend who remember the original show from their teens , which makes them prime marketing material .
In other words , they view it as safe , and therefore they do n't have to take major risks on it.Probably the only " reboot " I may be in favour of would be a live action series based on the Stand Alone Complex series from the Ghost in the Shell world .
Done well , that has the potential to be brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Why have a reboot when there's obviously so much great new stuff out there?
Not sure about Doctorow or Stross's stuff, but there are plenty out there.
Just look at something like Flashforward that came from Robert J. Sawer's novel of the same name, which is shaping up to be a pretty decent science fiction series.The only reason I can think of that reboots are favoured is because the studios probably already own the rights to the story.
Plus, there's the added bonus of a captured audience that are older with more money to spend who remember the original show from their teens, which makes them prime marketing material.
In other words, they view it as safe, and therefore they don't have to take major risks on it.Probably the only "reboot" I may be in favour of would be a live action series based on the Stand Alone Complex series from the Ghost in the Shell world.
Done well, that has the potential to be brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726772</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>nebaz</author>
	<datestamp>1263241380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twilight Zone got a re-reboot in 2003.  It only lasted one season.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twilight Zone got a re-reboot in 2003 .
It only lasted one season .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twilight Zone got a re-reboot in 2003.
It only lasted one season.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730634</id>
	<title>Re:The Tripods</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1263212160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think that there are enough Gitzo and Manfrotto enthusiasts to make a show about camera supports commercially viable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that there are enough Gitzo and Manfrotto enthusiasts to make a show about camera supports commercially viable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that there are enough Gitzo and Manfrotto enthusiasts to make a show about camera supports commercially viable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30736142</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1263306840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It needs a reboot so they can finish the storyline - the original actors have aged and the discontinuity wouldn't be very nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It needs a reboot so they can finish the storyline - the original actors have aged and the discontinuity would n't be very nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It needs a reboot so they can finish the storyline - the original actors have aged and the discontinuity wouldn't be very nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727740</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1263201060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Or even just forget about things that have already been written -- commission Doctorow or Stross (or someone) to create a TV miniseries based on new SF material.</p><p>I'm with you on that, except I can't stand either Doctorow or Charlie Strauss. Way too gee whiz / whiz bang, combined with horrendous characterization. And the whiz bang doesn't even make sense, either.</p><p>I'd prefer seeing more of what HBO is doing right now, making GRR Martin's Song of Fire and Ice into a TV show. I even have some hopes that they won't totally butcher it, since GRRM is involved in the production.</p><p>Some studios have been looking at Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, and that could be pretty cool.</p><p>But seriously, folks, learn from the horrible Star Trek remake and just let old shows die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Or even just forget about things that have already been written -- commission Doctorow or Stross ( or someone ) to create a TV miniseries based on new SF material.I 'm with you on that , except I ca n't stand either Doctorow or Charlie Strauss .
Way too gee whiz / whiz bang , combined with horrendous characterization .
And the whiz bang does n't even make sense , either.I 'd prefer seeing more of what HBO is doing right now , making GRR Martin 's Song of Fire and Ice into a TV show .
I even have some hopes that they wo n't totally butcher it , since GRRM is involved in the production.Some studios have been looking at Brandon Sanderson 's Mistborn and Robert Jordan 's Wheel of Time series , and that could be pretty cool.But seriously , folks , learn from the horrible Star Trek remake and just let old shows die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Or even just forget about things that have already been written -- commission Doctorow or Stross (or someone) to create a TV miniseries based on new SF material.I'm with you on that, except I can't stand either Doctorow or Charlie Strauss.
Way too gee whiz / whiz bang, combined with horrendous characterization.
And the whiz bang doesn't even make sense, either.I'd prefer seeing more of what HBO is doing right now, making GRR Martin's Song of Fire and Ice into a TV show.
I even have some hopes that they won't totally butcher it, since GRRM is involved in the production.Some studios have been looking at Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, and that could be pretty cool.But seriously, folks, learn from the horrible Star Trek remake and just let old shows die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728426</id>
	<title>Re:Star Wars</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1263203460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life</p></div></blockquote><p> Starwars.  Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.</p></div><p>How about all of them?</p><p>Seriously. I love the originals, but I'd love to see a complete reboot. Let's see what somebody else would've done with the basic premise of Star Wars.</p><p>After watching the latest Star Trek a couple days ago, I vote for Abrams.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life Starwars .
Episodes 1 , 2 and 3 especially.How about all of them ? Seriously .
I love the originals , but I 'd love to see a complete reboot .
Let 's see what somebody else would 've done with the basic premise of Star Wars.After watching the latest Star Trek a couple days ago , I vote for Abrams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life Starwars.
Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.How about all of them?Seriously.
I love the originals, but I'd love to see a complete reboot.
Let's see what somebody else would've done with the basic premise of Star Wars.After watching the latest Star Trek a couple days ago, I vote for Abrams.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741736</id>
	<title>Re:B5: Crusade</title>
	<author>UtterCoward</author>
	<datestamp>1263329100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought that the music was one of the strengths of Crusade. It was very different, and I didn't care for it at first, but it really grew on me.

I loved the series, and it's terrible treatment at the hands of TNT hurts as much as the abuse that has been heaped on many wonderful shows by FOX.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that the music was one of the strengths of Crusade .
It was very different , and I did n't care for it at first , but it really grew on me .
I loved the series , and it 's terrible treatment at the hands of TNT hurts as much as the abuse that has been heaped on many wonderful shows by FOX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that the music was one of the strengths of Crusade.
It was very different, and I didn't care for it at first, but it really grew on me.
I loved the series, and it's terrible treatment at the hands of TNT hurts as much as the abuse that has been heaped on many wonderful shows by FOX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568</id>
	<title>UFO - No Question</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1263203940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I imagine most of you have never seen this excellent British SF Series but you should. Despite those elements which date it horribly, it was still far far ahead of its time. This was my favorite show as a kid without doubt and in many ways its still an excellent show and aged well. It deserves a reboot if anything does.<br>However, it needs to be redone by the British, not Americans, or at least a co-production. Letting American writers and producers loose with it would ruin the show I think - it had an air of understatement that American TV shows and Audiences seem unable to maintain. A US production would be totally over the top and I think that would be a mistake.<br>By far the best show in the entire list - and amazingly ignored in all the comments I read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine most of you have never seen this excellent British SF Series but you should .
Despite those elements which date it horribly , it was still far far ahead of its time .
This was my favorite show as a kid without doubt and in many ways its still an excellent show and aged well .
It deserves a reboot if anything does.However , it needs to be redone by the British , not Americans , or at least a co-production .
Letting American writers and producers loose with it would ruin the show I think - it had an air of understatement that American TV shows and Audiences seem unable to maintain .
A US production would be totally over the top and I think that would be a mistake.By far the best show in the entire list - and amazingly ignored in all the comments I read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine most of you have never seen this excellent British SF Series but you should.
Despite those elements which date it horribly, it was still far far ahead of its time.
This was my favorite show as a kid without doubt and in many ways its still an excellent show and aged well.
It deserves a reboot if anything does.However, it needs to be redone by the British, not Americans, or at least a co-production.
Letting American writers and producers loose with it would ruin the show I think - it had an air of understatement that American TV shows and Audiences seem unable to maintain.
A US production would be totally over the top and I think that would be a mistake.By far the best show in the entire list - and amazingly ignored in all the comments I read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734376</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263287640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The uncovering of the atrocities performed by the Core Planets government gives Mal a sense of purpose outside what we saw in the series which was to simply stay alive and flying.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You were right up until this point.<br> <br>

The point of firefly the series was that Mal was running, constantly moving from place to place, never settling down or making roots. Several episodes showed that Mal was mainly running from his past, things he wanted to forget. The movie showed how Mal had to stop running from his past and face it.</p><blockquote><div><p>If you don't like the movie because two good characters died, then you are selling the writing short.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Yeah, I don't like that two of the best characters died but really, was it all that bad? Most movies/series do not ever give a sense of closure. When Serenity ended, you knew it was over and I can applause Whedon for actually finishing something in hollywood rather then a tired old "insert sequel here" ending.<br> <br>

Worst ending in hollywood, Lord of the rings. Closure should take no longer then 10 minutes, not half an hour fart arsing about. It feels like an anti-climax after the 5th closing scene.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The uncovering of the atrocities performed by the Core Planets government gives Mal a sense of purpose outside what we saw in the series which was to simply stay alive and flying .
You were right up until this point .
The point of firefly the series was that Mal was running , constantly moving from place to place , never settling down or making roots .
Several episodes showed that Mal was mainly running from his past , things he wanted to forget .
The movie showed how Mal had to stop running from his past and face it.If you do n't like the movie because two good characters died , then you are selling the writing short .
Yeah , I do n't like that two of the best characters died but really , was it all that bad ?
Most movies/series do not ever give a sense of closure .
When Serenity ended , you knew it was over and I can applause Whedon for actually finishing something in hollywood rather then a tired old " insert sequel here " ending .
Worst ending in hollywood , Lord of the rings .
Closure should take no longer then 10 minutes , not half an hour fart arsing about .
It feels like an anti-climax after the 5th closing scene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The uncovering of the atrocities performed by the Core Planets government gives Mal a sense of purpose outside what we saw in the series which was to simply stay alive and flying.
You were right up until this point.
The point of firefly the series was that Mal was running, constantly moving from place to place, never settling down or making roots.
Several episodes showed that Mal was mainly running from his past, things he wanted to forget.
The movie showed how Mal had to stop running from his past and face it.If you don't like the movie because two good characters died, then you are selling the writing short.
Yeah, I don't like that two of the best characters died but really, was it all that bad?
Most movies/series do not ever give a sense of closure.
When Serenity ended, you knew it was over and I can applause Whedon for actually finishing something in hollywood rather then a tired old "insert sequel here" ending.
Worst ending in hollywood, Lord of the rings.
Closure should take no longer then 10 minutes, not half an hour fart arsing about.
It feels like an anti-climax after the 5th closing scene.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727314</id>
	<title>Science Fiction versus Science Fantasy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's so many good sci-fi stories out there that Hollywood shouldn't need to resort to rehashing old ideas into modern blockbuster performances.  The problem is that with the emphasis that is placed on sex appeal and special effects, most of what's good about science fiction gets left out, and turned into what I like to call "science fantasy".  Now I've always been a big fan of Star Trek, and was impressed with the treatment that was given to the latest movie, but I still consider it to be in the realm of science fantasy as well.  It's showy, and glitzy and impressive, but the story gets sacrificed in order to get butts into the seats.  Science fiction, while providing excellent entertainment, also maintains a strong intellectual element.  That gets lost once the focus is put into other areas, and the whole genre suffers as a result.</p><p>Science fiction afficionados are able to sit and watch something that is more cerebral without getting bored with it, and appreciate the story more than the general public.  All of the focus on reboots and sequels is making science fiction stagnate.  It doesn't make it more mainstream, but it pollutes it with all of the elements that Hollywood needs to make money.  Take a look at "I, Robot" for example.  There's a good example of a story (set of stories, actually) that had excellent potential to become a great science fiction movie, but got bastardized by Hollywood in order to sell more tickets.  by the end of it, other than the title, Asimov's "3 laws" and a few minor story elements (lying robot, mind reading robot, Susan Calvin, USR) there was nothing that even identified the movie to Asimov's original text.  To me, that's poor story adaptation, and made for poor science fiction.</p><p>I'd like to see Hollywood take a real chance on some proper science fiction.  They probably won't get a $300 million blockbuster out of it, but they'd get a good movie for a change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's so many good sci-fi stories out there that Hollywood should n't need to resort to rehashing old ideas into modern blockbuster performances .
The problem is that with the emphasis that is placed on sex appeal and special effects , most of what 's good about science fiction gets left out , and turned into what I like to call " science fantasy " .
Now I 've always been a big fan of Star Trek , and was impressed with the treatment that was given to the latest movie , but I still consider it to be in the realm of science fantasy as well .
It 's showy , and glitzy and impressive , but the story gets sacrificed in order to get butts into the seats .
Science fiction , while providing excellent entertainment , also maintains a strong intellectual element .
That gets lost once the focus is put into other areas , and the whole genre suffers as a result.Science fiction afficionados are able to sit and watch something that is more cerebral without getting bored with it , and appreciate the story more than the general public .
All of the focus on reboots and sequels is making science fiction stagnate .
It does n't make it more mainstream , but it pollutes it with all of the elements that Hollywood needs to make money .
Take a look at " I , Robot " for example .
There 's a good example of a story ( set of stories , actually ) that had excellent potential to become a great science fiction movie , but got bastardized by Hollywood in order to sell more tickets .
by the end of it , other than the title , Asimov 's " 3 laws " and a few minor story elements ( lying robot , mind reading robot , Susan Calvin , USR ) there was nothing that even identified the movie to Asimov 's original text .
To me , that 's poor story adaptation , and made for poor science fiction.I 'd like to see Hollywood take a real chance on some proper science fiction .
They probably wo n't get a $ 300 million blockbuster out of it , but they 'd get a good movie for a change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's so many good sci-fi stories out there that Hollywood shouldn't need to resort to rehashing old ideas into modern blockbuster performances.
The problem is that with the emphasis that is placed on sex appeal and special effects, most of what's good about science fiction gets left out, and turned into what I like to call "science fantasy".
Now I've always been a big fan of Star Trek, and was impressed with the treatment that was given to the latest movie, but I still consider it to be in the realm of science fantasy as well.
It's showy, and glitzy and impressive, but the story gets sacrificed in order to get butts into the seats.
Science fiction, while providing excellent entertainment, also maintains a strong intellectual element.
That gets lost once the focus is put into other areas, and the whole genre suffers as a result.Science fiction afficionados are able to sit and watch something that is more cerebral without getting bored with it, and appreciate the story more than the general public.
All of the focus on reboots and sequels is making science fiction stagnate.
It doesn't make it more mainstream, but it pollutes it with all of the elements that Hollywood needs to make money.
Take a look at "I, Robot" for example.
There's a good example of a story (set of stories, actually) that had excellent potential to become a great science fiction movie, but got bastardized by Hollywood in order to sell more tickets.
by the end of it, other than the title, Asimov's "3 laws" and a few minor story elements (lying robot, mind reading robot, Susan Calvin, USR) there was nothing that even identified the movie to Asimov's original text.
To me, that's poor story adaptation, and made for poor science fiction.I'd like to see Hollywood take a real chance on some proper science fiction.
They probably won't get a $300 million blockbuster out of it, but they'd get a good movie for a change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729550</id>
	<title>Re:The Starlost</title>
	<author>Ped Xing</author>
	<datestamp>1263207480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are exactly right. A fantastic series conceived by Harlan Ellison and involving some of the greatest Science Fiction writers of the time, destroyed by bad acting, bad production, and bad pretty-well everything else. If you want a sense of how frustrating working on the series was, read Ben Bova's <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2415938/the\_infamous\_starcrossed\_and\_other.html" title="associatedcontent.com" rel="nofollow">The Starcrossed</a> [associatedcontent.com]. I especially like the early concept for the Internet, a booth where you can sit and ask a virtual person questions. Even his delivery was stuttering and with strange emphases in places, suggesting that his replies were composed of spliced together phonemes.</p><p>See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0AT\_b3RbZw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">this video</a> [youtube.com] for an introduction to the brilliant concept that was so ham-fistedly delivered in the original series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are exactly right .
A fantastic series conceived by Harlan Ellison and involving some of the greatest Science Fiction writers of the time , destroyed by bad acting , bad production , and bad pretty-well everything else .
If you want a sense of how frustrating working on the series was , read Ben Bova 's The Starcrossed [ associatedcontent.com ] .
I especially like the early concept for the Internet , a booth where you can sit and ask a virtual person questions .
Even his delivery was stuttering and with strange emphases in places , suggesting that his replies were composed of spliced together phonemes.See this video [ youtube.com ] for an introduction to the brilliant concept that was so ham-fistedly delivered in the original series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are exactly right.
A fantastic series conceived by Harlan Ellison and involving some of the greatest Science Fiction writers of the time, destroyed by bad acting, bad production, and bad pretty-well everything else.
If you want a sense of how frustrating working on the series was, read Ben Bova's The Starcrossed [associatedcontent.com].
I especially like the early concept for the Internet, a booth where you can sit and ask a virtual person questions.
Even his delivery was stuttering and with strange emphases in places, suggesting that his replies were composed of spliced together phonemes.See this video [youtube.com] for an introduction to the brilliant concept that was so ham-fistedly delivered in the original series.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729576</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1263207600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Twilight Zone (and The Outer Limits) wasn't a series, per se. It was a collection of vignettes. As such, there's nothing to reboot. And while I'd love to see a return of short-form storytelling (vignettes on TV and short stories in literature), it just doesn't seem like something people want anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Twilight Zone ( and The Outer Limits ) was n't a series , per se .
It was a collection of vignettes .
As such , there 's nothing to reboot .
And while I 'd love to see a return of short-form storytelling ( vignettes on TV and short stories in literature ) , it just does n't seem like something people want anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Twilight Zone (and The Outer Limits) wasn't a series, per se.
It was a collection of vignettes.
As such, there's nothing to reboot.
And while I'd love to see a return of short-form storytelling (vignettes on TV and short stories in literature), it just doesn't seem like something people want anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>CRCulver</author>
	<datestamp>1263241860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How about a miniseries based on <i>Hyperion</i> </p></div> </blockquote><p>I was recently reflecting on Simmons' <i> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553283685?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=3636363-20&amp;linkCode=xm2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creativeASIN=0553283685" title="amazon.com">Hyperion</a> [amazon.com] </i> myself, as I read it several times in my teens. I know there's long been talk of  making a film or television adaptation of it, but I now see a number of obstacles to trying to bring this book to a more mainstream audience. One is that it's just a bit <i>too</i> nerdy. I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse. Also, the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities.</p><p> <i>Hyperion</i> is a decent work of science-fiction (though I think of it more as a young-adult choice than a universal classic), but it might just not be right for Hollywood.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a miniseries based on Hyperion I was recently reflecting on Simmons ' Hyperion [ amazon.com ] myself , as I read it several times in my teens .
I know there 's long been talk of making a film or television adaptation of it , but I now see a number of obstacles to trying to bring this book to a more mainstream audience .
One is that it 's just a bit too nerdy .
I mean , one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats , and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse .
Also , the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities .
Hyperion is a decent work of science-fiction ( though I think of it more as a young-adult choice than a universal classic ) , but it might just not be right for Hollywood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a miniseries based on Hyperion  I was recently reflecting on Simmons'  Hyperion [amazon.com]  myself, as I read it several times in my teens.
I know there's long been talk of  making a film or television adaptation of it, but I now see a number of obstacles to trying to bring this book to a more mainstream audience.
One is that it's just a bit too nerdy.
I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.
Also, the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities.
Hyperion is a decent work of science-fiction (though I think of it more as a young-adult choice than a universal classic), but it might just not be right for Hollywood.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730814</id>
	<title>Smegging 'Dwarf anybody?</title>
	<author>Droid Rot</author>
	<datestamp>1263213180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if anybody has mentioned it yet, but personally, I'm still waiting for a Red Dwarf The Motion Picture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if anybody has mentioned it yet , but personally , I 'm still waiting for a Red Dwarf The Motion Picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if anybody has mentioned it yet, but personally, I'm still waiting for a Red Dwarf The Motion Picture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726600</id>
	<title>against a dark background</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1263240780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>do a BSG style multi season show based on against a dark background by Banks</htmltext>
<tokenext>do a BSG style multi season show based on against a dark background by Banks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do a BSG style multi season show based on against a dark background by Banks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731588</id>
	<title>Runner!</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1263217740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logan's Run would make a great darkly paranoid reboot.<br>It would be a nice commentary on the cult of youth / ageism and disposability that seems prevalent in western culture at the moment.</p><p>I was thinking about the previous recommendation of Iain M Banks' Culture novels, but they'd just fuck them up and ruin some great reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logan 's Run would make a great darkly paranoid reboot.It would be a nice commentary on the cult of youth / ageism and disposability that seems prevalent in western culture at the moment.I was thinking about the previous recommendation of Iain M Banks ' Culture novels , but they 'd just fuck them up and ruin some great reading : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logan's Run would make a great darkly paranoid reboot.It would be a nice commentary on the cult of youth / ageism and disposability that seems prevalent in western culture at the moment.I was thinking about the previous recommendation of Iain M Banks' Culture novels, but they'd just fuck them up and ruin some great reading :-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727402</id>
	<title>Star Wars Christmas Special</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1263243240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On Naboo with JarJar. George Lucas needs to outdo his last Christmas Special.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Naboo with JarJar .
George Lucas needs to outdo his last Christmas Special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Naboo with JarJar.
George Lucas needs to outdo his last Christmas Special.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727206</id>
	<title>Re:Max Headroom</title>
	<author>OldeTimeGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263242700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about they just release it to video?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about they just release it to video ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about they just release it to video?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729670</id>
	<title>Spaceballs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263207960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Spaceballs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Spaceballs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Spaceballs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732504</id>
	<title>Re:Misfits of Science</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1263224340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Courtney Cox was hot... the only thing I remember about that show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Courtney Cox was hot... the only thing I remember about that show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Courtney Cox was hot... the only thing I remember about that show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726894</id>
	<title>Bucky O'Hare and the Toad Wars</title>
	<author>jcaliff</author>
	<datestamp>1263241740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd love to see something else done with Bucky O'Hare, keeping it true to the comic and with fantastic animation.  They can keep the theme song from the original cartoon though, that thing is catchy!

BUCKY! Captain Bucky O'Hare
He goes where no ordinary rabbit would dare</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see something else done with Bucky O'Hare , keeping it true to the comic and with fantastic animation .
They can keep the theme song from the original cartoon though , that thing is catchy !
BUCKY ! Captain Bucky O'Hare He goes where no ordinary rabbit would dare</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see something else done with Bucky O'Hare, keeping it true to the comic and with fantastic animation.
They can keep the theme song from the original cartoon though, that thing is catchy!
BUCKY! Captain Bucky O'Hare
He goes where no ordinary rabbit would dare</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727298</id>
	<title>Earth: Final Conflict</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was off to a great start in Season 1 and then they completely ruined it by killing off William Boone. It was all crash and burn from there on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was off to a great start in Season 1 and then they completely ruined it by killing off William Boone .
It was all crash and burn from there on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was off to a great start in Season 1 and then they completely ruined it by killing off William Boone.
It was all crash and burn from there on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727862</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1263201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing that was a bit iffy about Firefly was the large number of habitable planets and moons orbiting one star.  The backstory is that humans found this star system and was able to terraform all these planets and moons, which conveniently had approx. 1g gravity.</p><p>This setting was necessary to avoid the plot device of "warp drive".  The show's creator wanted a show where people were in space, but not with technology too far more advanced that our own (though they do have some odd things like floating islands, etc.).  The problem is that warp drive is theoretically impossible, and if it ever does happen, it'll require a complete change in our understanding of physics.  But warp drive is a necessary plot device to have humans traveling between star systems in any reasonable time, a la Star Trek.  So putting lots of livable worlds around one star is about the only way to avoid it.</p><p>The "cowboys in space" thing is completely reasonable given these constraints.  Remember, with propulsion technology like our own, even traveling between planets/moons in the same system can take days, weeks, or even months (it would currently take us months to travel to Jupiter with current technology).  So Firefly's creator envisioned a system where the inner worlds were controlled by the oppressive authoritarian government, and had lots of tech, while the outer worlds were not very well controlled by this Alliance (and not as well terraformed either), and thus it was much like the "Wild West", with less tech, fewer luxuries, not many police around to protect you, etc.  This was actually a genius idea IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that was a bit iffy about Firefly was the large number of habitable planets and moons orbiting one star .
The backstory is that humans found this star system and was able to terraform all these planets and moons , which conveniently had approx .
1g gravity.This setting was necessary to avoid the plot device of " warp drive " .
The show 's creator wanted a show where people were in space , but not with technology too far more advanced that our own ( though they do have some odd things like floating islands , etc. ) .
The problem is that warp drive is theoretically impossible , and if it ever does happen , it 'll require a complete change in our understanding of physics .
But warp drive is a necessary plot device to have humans traveling between star systems in any reasonable time , a la Star Trek .
So putting lots of livable worlds around one star is about the only way to avoid it.The " cowboys in space " thing is completely reasonable given these constraints .
Remember , with propulsion technology like our own , even traveling between planets/moons in the same system can take days , weeks , or even months ( it would currently take us months to travel to Jupiter with current technology ) .
So Firefly 's creator envisioned a system where the inner worlds were controlled by the oppressive authoritarian government , and had lots of tech , while the outer worlds were not very well controlled by this Alliance ( and not as well terraformed either ) , and thus it was much like the " Wild West " , with less tech , fewer luxuries , not many police around to protect you , etc .
This was actually a genius idea IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that was a bit iffy about Firefly was the large number of habitable planets and moons orbiting one star.
The backstory is that humans found this star system and was able to terraform all these planets and moons, which conveniently had approx.
1g gravity.This setting was necessary to avoid the plot device of "warp drive".
The show's creator wanted a show where people were in space, but not with technology too far more advanced that our own (though they do have some odd things like floating islands, etc.).
The problem is that warp drive is theoretically impossible, and if it ever does happen, it'll require a complete change in our understanding of physics.
But warp drive is a necessary plot device to have humans traveling between star systems in any reasonable time, a la Star Trek.
So putting lots of livable worlds around one star is about the only way to avoid it.The "cowboys in space" thing is completely reasonable given these constraints.
Remember, with propulsion technology like our own, even traveling between planets/moons in the same system can take days, weeks, or even months (it would currently take us months to travel to Jupiter with current technology).
So Firefly's creator envisioned a system where the inner worlds were controlled by the oppressive authoritarian government, and had lots of tech, while the outer worlds were not very well controlled by this Alliance (and not as well terraformed either), and thus it was much like the "Wild West", with less tech, fewer luxuries, not many police around to protect you, etc.
This was actually a genius idea IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728888</id>
	<title>Nu Blakes 7 - Cast</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1263205080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avon - Andrew J Robinson (though he is getting old)<br>Villa - David Hewlitt (Stargate Atlantis)<br>Servelan - Morena Baccaraine (firefly)<br>Tarrant - Joe Flanagin (Stargate Atlantis)</p><p>My short list so far...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avon - Andrew J Robinson ( though he is getting old ) Villa - David Hewlitt ( Stargate Atlantis ) Servelan - Morena Baccaraine ( firefly ) Tarrant - Joe Flanagin ( Stargate Atlantis ) My short list so far.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avon - Andrew J Robinson (though he is getting old)Villa - David Hewlitt (Stargate Atlantis)Servelan - Morena Baccaraine (firefly)Tarrant - Joe Flanagin (Stargate Atlantis)My short list so far...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728490</id>
	<title>Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I talked with Gil Gerard at DragonCon this year - he's trying to get it rebooted. (as a producer not an actor)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I talked with Gil Gerard at DragonCon this year - he 's trying to get it rebooted .
( as a producer not an actor )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I talked with Gil Gerard at DragonCon this year - he's trying to get it rebooted.
(as a producer not an actor)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727782</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cory Doctorow? Really? Stross is a solid, workmanlike writer, but Doctorow? He's a hack. I could name a half dozen current Science Fiction writers better than Doctorow and Stross combined. Greg Bear. Stephen Baxter. John Barnes. Iain Banks. Peter Hamilton. Greg Egan. And that's just current authors, off the top of my head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cory Doctorow ?
Really ? Stross is a solid , workmanlike writer , but Doctorow ?
He 's a hack .
I could name a half dozen current Science Fiction writers better than Doctorow and Stross combined .
Greg Bear .
Stephen Baxter .
John Barnes .
Iain Banks .
Peter Hamilton .
Greg Egan .
And that 's just current authors , off the top of my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cory Doctorow?
Really? Stross is a solid, workmanlike writer, but Doctorow?
He's a hack.
I could name a half dozen current Science Fiction writers better than Doctorow and Stross combined.
Greg Bear.
Stephen Baxter.
John Barnes.
Iain Banks.
Peter Hamilton.
Greg Egan.
And that's just current authors, off the top of my head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727460</id>
	<title>Dark Angel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263243420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dark Angel was a good one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dark Angel was a good one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dark Angel was a good one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733068</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263228840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel the death of Shepard Book was entirely premature.  The death of Wash I objected to on the sole basis of him being my favorite character, but Book was hyped up the entire series as the iconic "Man with the dark past" character of the show, and then they killed him without giving one inkling.  Mystery is fine: necessary, even.  But to kill off the character without any arc or sense of closure felt more like burning a bridge in the event of a sequel(I know, wishful thinking, but I'd still watch it).</p><p>In fact, the movie seemed to be an effort to destroy any possibility of a sequel: River's mystery is revealed, two very integral characters have been killed without having much in the way of development, and River is no longer crazy. She is also super competent at everything: she is capable of taking up any character's role, simply lacking the flavor they would bring to it.  She's pilot enough to replace Wash, psychic enough to replace Mal's intuitive leadership, capable enough with hand-to-hand combat and weaponry to take over either of the two enforcer characters.  The only people she would really need are Simon and Kaylee, whose roles are purely maintenance.</p><p>If there were any hope of a sequel, I'd have had a lot more of a problem with Serenity.  As it stands, I still liked it plenty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel the death of Shepard Book was entirely premature .
The death of Wash I objected to on the sole basis of him being my favorite character , but Book was hyped up the entire series as the iconic " Man with the dark past " character of the show , and then they killed him without giving one inkling .
Mystery is fine : necessary , even .
But to kill off the character without any arc or sense of closure felt more like burning a bridge in the event of a sequel ( I know , wishful thinking , but I 'd still watch it ) .In fact , the movie seemed to be an effort to destroy any possibility of a sequel : River 's mystery is revealed , two very integral characters have been killed without having much in the way of development , and River is no longer crazy .
She is also super competent at everything : she is capable of taking up any character 's role , simply lacking the flavor they would bring to it .
She 's pilot enough to replace Wash , psychic enough to replace Mal 's intuitive leadership , capable enough with hand-to-hand combat and weaponry to take over either of the two enforcer characters .
The only people she would really need are Simon and Kaylee , whose roles are purely maintenance.If there were any hope of a sequel , I 'd have had a lot more of a problem with Serenity .
As it stands , I still liked it plenty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel the death of Shepard Book was entirely premature.
The death of Wash I objected to on the sole basis of him being my favorite character, but Book was hyped up the entire series as the iconic "Man with the dark past" character of the show, and then they killed him without giving one inkling.
Mystery is fine: necessary, even.
But to kill off the character without any arc or sense of closure felt more like burning a bridge in the event of a sequel(I know, wishful thinking, but I'd still watch it).In fact, the movie seemed to be an effort to destroy any possibility of a sequel: River's mystery is revealed, two very integral characters have been killed without having much in the way of development, and River is no longer crazy.
She is also super competent at everything: she is capable of taking up any character's role, simply lacking the flavor they would bring to it.
She's pilot enough to replace Wash, psychic enough to replace Mal's intuitive leadership, capable enough with hand-to-hand combat and weaponry to take over either of the two enforcer characters.
The only people she would really need are Simon and Kaylee, whose roles are purely maintenance.If there were any hope of a sequel, I'd have had a lot more of a problem with Serenity.
As it stands, I still liked it plenty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733440</id>
	<title>Re:How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and with Christian Bale in the father's role, 'cause no-one does dark better than Christian Bale!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and with Christian Bale in the father 's role , 'cause no-one does dark better than Christian Bale !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and with Christian Bale in the father's role, 'cause no-one does dark better than Christian Bale!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729320</id>
	<title>Re:There is only one worthy</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1263206580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kudos on the Stainless Steel Rat idea, with the right actor that would capture the imagination of millions.<br> <br> There's already about 20 books made, it would make a fantastic trilogy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kudos on the Stainless Steel Rat idea , with the right actor that would capture the imagination of millions .
There 's already about 20 books made , it would make a fantastic trilogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kudos on the Stainless Steel Rat idea, with the right actor that would capture the imagination of millions.
There's already about 20 books made, it would make a fantastic trilogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741806</id>
	<title>Re:A colder war</title>
	<author>UtterCoward</author>
	<datestamp>1263329400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read this yesterday, and I have to agree with you. Bringing this to TV could be tremendous. I wish that I knew Damon Lindelhof, so I could recommend it to him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this yesterday , and I have to agree with you .
Bringing this to TV could be tremendous .
I wish that I knew Damon Lindelhof , so I could recommend it to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this yesterday, and I have to agree with you.
Bringing this to TV could be tremendous.
I wish that I knew Damon Lindelhof, so I could recommend it to him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728204</id>
	<title>Sliders</title>
	<author>lyinhart</author>
	<datestamp>1263202620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliders" title="wikipedia.org">Sliders</a> [wikipedia.org]? Fun show, great ensemble cast, interesting concept that postulated about alternate Earths. The first couple of seasons were great, but then they changed the tone to become a lot more dark and dreary. They whacked John Rhys-Davies, added Kari Wuhrer and started ripping off various sci-fi films for plots. Cleavant Derricks's character became serious and less of a comic relief character. They started fighting an unnecessary recurring antagonist, the cro-mags. Sabrina Lloyd was written out, Jerry O'Connell got his brother on the show and then they had some weirdness about two Quinn Mallories merging or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Sliders [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Fun show , great ensemble cast , interesting concept that postulated about alternate Earths .
The first couple of seasons were great , but then they changed the tone to become a lot more dark and dreary .
They whacked John Rhys-Davies , added Kari Wuhrer and started ripping off various sci-fi films for plots .
Cleavant Derricks 's character became serious and less of a comic relief character .
They started fighting an unnecessary recurring antagonist , the cro-mags .
Sabrina Lloyd was written out , Jerry O'Connell got his brother on the show and then they had some weirdness about two Quinn Mallories merging or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Sliders [wikipedia.org]?
Fun show, great ensemble cast, interesting concept that postulated about alternate Earths.
The first couple of seasons were great, but then they changed the tone to become a lot more dark and dreary.
They whacked John Rhys-Davies, added Kari Wuhrer and started ripping off various sci-fi films for plots.
Cleavant Derricks's character became serious and less of a comic relief character.
They started fighting an unnecessary recurring antagonist, the cro-mags.
Sabrina Lloyd was written out, Jerry O'Connell got his brother on the show and then they had some weirdness about two Quinn Mallories merging or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728346</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1263203220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can I get a <i>Snow Crash</i> movie or mini-series here?</p></div><p>It would need some serious updating.  I reread it fairly recently and was struck by how much of it is grounded in extrapolating 80s technology, or the worst of the 80s society, or how much humor is poking fun at 80s pop culture, etc.  I was surprised at how dated it had become so quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I get a Snow Crash movie or mini-series here ? It would need some serious updating .
I reread it fairly recently and was struck by how much of it is grounded in extrapolating 80s technology , or the worst of the 80s society , or how much humor is poking fun at 80s pop culture , etc .
I was surprised at how dated it had become so quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I get a Snow Crash movie or mini-series here?It would need some serious updating.
I reread it fairly recently and was struck by how much of it is grounded in extrapolating 80s technology, or the worst of the 80s society, or how much humor is poking fun at 80s pop culture, etc.
I was surprised at how dated it had become so quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728988</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263205440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just as long as KDawson gets the boot I'm all for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as long as KDawson gets the boot I 'm all for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as long as KDawson gets the boot I'm all for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731188</id>
	<title>Revive Red Dwarf... or something!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bring back Red Dwarf... Reboot Red Dwarf... Continue the story with the same cast or a different cast... I don't care, just bring it back somehow! And whatever happened to the on-again off-again movie anyway?</p><p>For a movie... must have all of the original cast and writers! There! That's all!</p><p>Oh, and agreed with all of the above regarding the hundreds upon hundreds of great Sci-Fi already out there in paperback. A lifetime of great NEW material!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring back Red Dwarf... Reboot Red Dwarf... Continue the story with the same cast or a different cast... I do n't care , just bring it back somehow !
And whatever happened to the on-again off-again movie anyway ? For a movie... must have all of the original cast and writers !
There ! That 's all ! Oh , and agreed with all of the above regarding the hundreds upon hundreds of great Sci-Fi already out there in paperback .
A lifetime of great NEW material !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring back Red Dwarf... Reboot Red Dwarf... Continue the story with the same cast or a different cast... I don't care, just bring it back somehow!
And whatever happened to the on-again off-again movie anyway?For a movie... must have all of the original cast and writers!
There! That's all!Oh, and agreed with all of the above regarding the hundreds upon hundreds of great Sci-Fi already out there in paperback.
A lifetime of great NEW material!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733000</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>electrons\_are\_brave</author>
	<datestamp>1263228300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right - it was the moral ambiguity that made the show. It would be interesting to see how they handle the issue of terrorism in these sorry times.<p>

Mind you, it was very uneven - the best episodes were great, but it often had the Lost-in-Space style "alien of the week" approach to Sci-Fi (Remember the mushrooms that could read minds? The planet made of spit? The space rats?).</p><p>

Overall, I've always thought it would make a great movie if you dicked all of the silly episodes and just dealt with the central terrorist (or rebel depending on your POV) plot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right - it was the moral ambiguity that made the show .
It would be interesting to see how they handle the issue of terrorism in these sorry times .
Mind you , it was very uneven - the best episodes were great , but it often had the Lost-in-Space style " alien of the week " approach to Sci-Fi ( Remember the mushrooms that could read minds ?
The planet made of spit ?
The space rats ? ) .
Overall , I 've always thought it would make a great movie if you dicked all of the silly episodes and just dealt with the central terrorist ( or rebel depending on your POV ) plot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right - it was the moral ambiguity that made the show.
It would be interesting to see how they handle the issue of terrorism in these sorry times.
Mind you, it was very uneven - the best episodes were great, but it often had the Lost-in-Space style "alien of the week" approach to Sci-Fi (Remember the mushrooms that could read minds?
The planet made of spit?
The space rats?).
Overall, I've always thought it would make a great movie if you dicked all of the silly episodes and just dealt with the central terrorist (or rebel depending on your POV) plot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726780</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1263241380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, this. How about trying something new.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this .
How about trying something new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this.
How about trying something new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727926</id>
	<title>Re:Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263201660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man that cyborg guy in C.O.P.S.... every time the criminals shot at him, the bullets hit his metal body and deflected away. Even as a 12-year-old, I was screaming, "AIM FOR HIS HEAD YOU IDIOTS!" every episode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man that cyborg guy in C.O.P.S.... every time the criminals shot at him , the bullets hit his metal body and deflected away .
Even as a 12-year-old , I was screaming , " AIM FOR HIS HEAD YOU IDIOTS !
" every episode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man that cyborg guy in C.O.P.S.... every time the criminals shot at him, the bullets hit his metal body and deflected away.
Even as a 12-year-old, I was screaming, "AIM FOR HIS HEAD YOU IDIOTS!
" every episode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727018</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263242160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FireFly probably couldn't be brought back as a direct continuation.  The River story arc was basically finished by the film and I doubt that you'd get the same cast back.  You could, however, set another show in the same universe (and tidy up the 'I don't know the difference between a galaxy and a star system' bug in the original), with a similar setting.  Another small crew of people doing mostly legal things on the edge.  There were a lot of hints that Book had an unexplored backstory.  Setting it around a character with the same background as him (whatever it was) would be a nice way of tying it to the original.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FireFly probably could n't be brought back as a direct continuation .
The River story arc was basically finished by the film and I doubt that you 'd get the same cast back .
You could , however , set another show in the same universe ( and tidy up the 'I do n't know the difference between a galaxy and a star system ' bug in the original ) , with a similar setting .
Another small crew of people doing mostly legal things on the edge .
There were a lot of hints that Book had an unexplored backstory .
Setting it around a character with the same background as him ( whatever it was ) would be a nice way of tying it to the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FireFly probably couldn't be brought back as a direct continuation.
The River story arc was basically finished by the film and I doubt that you'd get the same cast back.
You could, however, set another show in the same universe (and tidy up the 'I don't know the difference between a galaxy and a star system' bug in the original), with a similar setting.
Another small crew of people doing mostly legal things on the edge.
There were a lot of hints that Book had an unexplored backstory.
Setting it around a character with the same background as him (whatever it was) would be a nice way of tying it to the original.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</id>
	<title>Twilight zone</title>
	<author>flogger</author>
	<datestamp>1263240900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well this got a reboot in the 80s with the movie, maybe a re-reboot is in order?<br> <br>
There are too many sci-fi stories out there that need to hit the screen before we get reboots of old ones. Where is? Ender's Game, Antares Dawn, Startide Rising, Fire in the Deep, Armor? <br> <br> I'd love to see Ender's Game in 3d. "The enemy's gate is down..." and our orientation would switch appropriately....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well this got a reboot in the 80s with the movie , maybe a re-reboot is in order ?
There are too many sci-fi stories out there that need to hit the screen before we get reboots of old ones .
Where is ?
Ender 's Game , Antares Dawn , Startide Rising , Fire in the Deep , Armor ?
I 'd love to see Ender 's Game in 3d .
" The enemy 's gate is down... " and our orientation would switch appropriately... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well this got a reboot in the 80s with the movie, maybe a re-reboot is in order?
There are too many sci-fi stories out there that need to hit the screen before we get reboots of old ones.
Where is?
Ender's Game, Antares Dawn, Startide Rising, Fire in the Deep, Armor?
I'd love to see Ender's Game in 3d.
"The enemy's gate is down..." and our orientation would switch appropriately....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730560</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1263211800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lasa Mason's Arachne.<br>Janet Kagan's Mirabile.</p><p>Both could easily be adapted, both offer a rich world that could be serialized, and both offer human interest plots that are suitable for non-techies in a bizarre environment with enough twists to warp your mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lasa Mason 's Arachne.Janet Kagan 's Mirabile.Both could easily be adapted , both offer a rich world that could be serialized , and both offer human interest plots that are suitable for non-techies in a bizarre environment with enough twists to warp your mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lasa Mason's Arachne.Janet Kagan's Mirabile.Both could easily be adapted, both offer a rich world that could be serialized, and both offer human interest plots that are suitable for non-techies in a bizarre environment with enough twists to warp your mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730930</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done.</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263213600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Had they stuck with the Trek story, and had the Temporal Integrity Commission go back and set things right, again, great movie.</i></p><p>No, that would have been awful, because it would have meant we're stuck with the forty years of canon that has been bogging the series down so badly.  The series was toppling under its own weight, but trekkies wouldn't let go of a single scrap of that history.  Such that their opinion of any Star Trek media is based almost entirely on how well it sticks to that history to a tee.  Ugh.</p><p>Splitting off the timeline, freeing the series from that history while simultaneously respecting it, was the best thing that could have happened to Trek.  And if doing that means going against Trek's standard temporal theory where time is linear and the Time Cops come around and "fix" it whenever someone mucks with it, then so be it.  Actually, expunging that piece of Trek canon was in and of itself a great move by itself.  Because when your sci-fi series shares the same theory of time travel as a Van Damme movie, that's a hint that your theory is dumb.</p><p>Thank God JJ Abrams came along and saved the series from the Trekkies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had they stuck with the Trek story , and had the Temporal Integrity Commission go back and set things right , again , great movie.No , that would have been awful , because it would have meant we 're stuck with the forty years of canon that has been bogging the series down so badly .
The series was toppling under its own weight , but trekkies would n't let go of a single scrap of that history .
Such that their opinion of any Star Trek media is based almost entirely on how well it sticks to that history to a tee .
Ugh.Splitting off the timeline , freeing the series from that history while simultaneously respecting it , was the best thing that could have happened to Trek .
And if doing that means going against Trek 's standard temporal theory where time is linear and the Time Cops come around and " fix " it whenever someone mucks with it , then so be it .
Actually , expunging that piece of Trek canon was in and of itself a great move by itself .
Because when your sci-fi series shares the same theory of time travel as a Van Damme movie , that 's a hint that your theory is dumb.Thank God JJ Abrams came along and saved the series from the Trekkies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had they stuck with the Trek story, and had the Temporal Integrity Commission go back and set things right, again, great movie.No, that would have been awful, because it would have meant we're stuck with the forty years of canon that has been bogging the series down so badly.
The series was toppling under its own weight, but trekkies wouldn't let go of a single scrap of that history.
Such that their opinion of any Star Trek media is based almost entirely on how well it sticks to that history to a tee.
Ugh.Splitting off the timeline, freeing the series from that history while simultaneously respecting it, was the best thing that could have happened to Trek.
And if doing that means going against Trek's standard temporal theory where time is linear and the Time Cops come around and "fix" it whenever someone mucks with it, then so be it.
Actually, expunging that piece of Trek canon was in and of itself a great move by itself.
Because when your sci-fi series shares the same theory of time travel as a Van Damme movie, that's a hint that your theory is dumb.Thank God JJ Abrams came along and saved the series from the Trekkies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728260</id>
	<title>Re:Takeshi Kovacs</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1263202860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my hope would be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeshi\_Kovacs" title="wikipedia.org">Takeshi Kovacs trilogy</a> [wikipedia.org]. Everything from a detective story to martian ghosts.</p></div><p>Well, <i>Altered Carbon</i> was supposed to have been optioned as a film ages ago, but the page seems to have vanished from IMDB.
</p><p>Probably the studio found out that the main protagonist kept hopping bodies (so you couldn't use a Big Star) and/or spotted the anti-Catholic storyline.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my hope would be a Takeshi Kovacs trilogy [ wikipedia.org ] .
Everything from a detective story to martian ghosts.Well , Altered Carbon was supposed to have been optioned as a film ages ago , but the page seems to have vanished from IMDB .
Probably the studio found out that the main protagonist kept hopping bodies ( so you could n't use a Big Star ) and/or spotted the anti-Catholic storyline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my hope would be a Takeshi Kovacs trilogy [wikipedia.org].
Everything from a detective story to martian ghosts.Well, Altered Carbon was supposed to have been optioned as a film ages ago, but the page seems to have vanished from IMDB.
Probably the studio found out that the main protagonist kept hopping bodies (so you couldn't use a Big Star) and/or spotted the anti-Catholic storyline.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726918</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263241860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My thought too.  A great premise, good script writing, terrible acting and terrible sets.  Blake's 7 with some decent actors and a budget would be great.  As long as they don't try to make them into 'good guys'.  The great thing about Blake's 7 was that, from a certain perspective, it was about a bunch of terrorists and thieves.  From another, it was about a bunch of heroic rebels.  Most of the time, the truth was somewhere between the two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My thought too .
A great premise , good script writing , terrible acting and terrible sets .
Blake 's 7 with some decent actors and a budget would be great .
As long as they do n't try to make them into 'good guys' .
The great thing about Blake 's 7 was that , from a certain perspective , it was about a bunch of terrorists and thieves .
From another , it was about a bunch of heroic rebels .
Most of the time , the truth was somewhere between the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thought too.
A great premise, good script writing, terrible acting and terrible sets.
Blake's 7 with some decent actors and a budget would be great.
As long as they don't try to make them into 'good guys'.
The great thing about Blake's 7 was that, from a certain perspective, it was about a bunch of terrorists and thieves.
From another, it was about a bunch of heroic rebels.
Most of the time, the truth was somewhere between the two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728916</id>
	<title>Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency</title>
	<author>kandela</author>
	<datestamp>1263205140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to see this with a Mike Hammer style voice over. Adams' comedy is based on taking tangents on the current events. To do that well you need a narrative tool. It just so happens that narrating in that way is traditionally how detective stories were told on screen. <b>It's too perfect!</b> Personally I actually liked Dirk Gently better than Hitch Hikers, I realise this makes me weird. Possibly I am alone in the universe on this point but whatever it would make a damn fine movie or even series.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see this with a Mike Hammer style voice over .
Adams ' comedy is based on taking tangents on the current events .
To do that well you need a narrative tool .
It just so happens that narrating in that way is traditionally how detective stories were told on screen .
It 's too perfect !
Personally I actually liked Dirk Gently better than Hitch Hikers , I realise this makes me weird .
Possibly I am alone in the universe on this point but whatever it would make a damn fine movie or even series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see this with a Mike Hammer style voice over.
Adams' comedy is based on taking tangents on the current events.
To do that well you need a narrative tool.
It just so happens that narrating in that way is traditionally how detective stories were told on screen.
It's too perfect!
Personally I actually liked Dirk Gently better than Hitch Hikers, I realise this makes me weird.
Possibly I am alone in the universe on this point but whatever it would make a damn fine movie or even series.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727690</id>
	<title>Sapphire and Steel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263200940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone remember this series from the early 80's BBC? Good show and would work well in a reboot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember this series from the early 80 's BBC ?
Good show and would work well in a reboot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember this series from the early 80's BBC?
Good show and would work well in a reboot...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727318</id>
	<title>Star Trek</title>
	<author>CaptnMArk</author>
	<datestamp>1263243000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just reboot back to the ST:TMP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just reboot back to the ST : TMP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just reboot back to the ST:TMP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729630</id>
	<title>Re:How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1263207780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno. <i>Honey, I Vivisectioned the Kids</i> doesn't have the same ring to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
Honey , I Vivisectioned the Kids does n't have the same ring to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
Honey, I Vivisectioned the Kids doesn't have the same ring to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728294</id>
	<title>My SciFi Reboot List</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263202980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logan's Run, it wasn't done right the first time it needs better acting and better special effects.</p><p>Silent Running, didn't have very convincing robots or plot, bad acting and needs a complete and total rewrite.</p><p>Buck Rodgers in the 25st Century only this time when ratings go down don't try to make it a Star trek clone.</p><p>Flash Gordan, keep the Queen soundtrack it was the best thing of that movie. That Syfy series wasn't very good and I think it can be done a lot better.</p><p>Blake's Seven better special effects, better acting, different ending.</p><p>Red Dwarf, make it funnier more like the Novels.</p><p>Space: 1999 make it Space: 2099 instead of a nuclear reactor explosion on The Moon, have a Large Hardon Collider malfunction and turn into a gravity drive that creates mini-black holes that turn into wormholes and suck in the Moon and it randomly pops up all over the galaxy.</p><p>2001: a Space Odyssey make it 2101: a Space Odyssey have IBM make the HAL hardware and Microsoft the HAL software, due to a defect HAL flips the wrong bit and goes psychotic trying to kill off the crew. Until Dave Bowman an Angry Astronaught with a Screw Driver finds a way to defeat him.</p><p>Space: Above and Beyond it was canceled before it started to get good. Have the Earthers violate the Chig colonies that starts up a war, but the Space Marines are not aware of that fact until they discover it later that Xenophobic leaders and military had done the Chigs dirty and that is what started the war. Then see if it has a different ending, does everyone in the Angry Angels die, survive, make a truce with the Chigs, or get captured as POWS and another Space Marine group has to rescue them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logan 's Run , it was n't done right the first time it needs better acting and better special effects.Silent Running , did n't have very convincing robots or plot , bad acting and needs a complete and total rewrite.Buck Rodgers in the 25st Century only this time when ratings go down do n't try to make it a Star trek clone.Flash Gordan , keep the Queen soundtrack it was the best thing of that movie .
That Syfy series was n't very good and I think it can be done a lot better.Blake 's Seven better special effects , better acting , different ending.Red Dwarf , make it funnier more like the Novels.Space : 1999 make it Space : 2099 instead of a nuclear reactor explosion on The Moon , have a Large Hardon Collider malfunction and turn into a gravity drive that creates mini-black holes that turn into wormholes and suck in the Moon and it randomly pops up all over the galaxy.2001 : a Space Odyssey make it 2101 : a Space Odyssey have IBM make the HAL hardware and Microsoft the HAL software , due to a defect HAL flips the wrong bit and goes psychotic trying to kill off the crew .
Until Dave Bowman an Angry Astronaught with a Screw Driver finds a way to defeat him.Space : Above and Beyond it was canceled before it started to get good .
Have the Earthers violate the Chig colonies that starts up a war , but the Space Marines are not aware of that fact until they discover it later that Xenophobic leaders and military had done the Chigs dirty and that is what started the war .
Then see if it has a different ending , does everyone in the Angry Angels die , survive , make a truce with the Chigs , or get captured as POWS and another Space Marine group has to rescue them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logan's Run, it wasn't done right the first time it needs better acting and better special effects.Silent Running, didn't have very convincing robots or plot, bad acting and needs a complete and total rewrite.Buck Rodgers in the 25st Century only this time when ratings go down don't try to make it a Star trek clone.Flash Gordan, keep the Queen soundtrack it was the best thing of that movie.
That Syfy series wasn't very good and I think it can be done a lot better.Blake's Seven better special effects, better acting, different ending.Red Dwarf, make it funnier more like the Novels.Space: 1999 make it Space: 2099 instead of a nuclear reactor explosion on The Moon, have a Large Hardon Collider malfunction and turn into a gravity drive that creates mini-black holes that turn into wormholes and suck in the Moon and it randomly pops up all over the galaxy.2001: a Space Odyssey make it 2101: a Space Odyssey have IBM make the HAL hardware and Microsoft the HAL software, due to a defect HAL flips the wrong bit and goes psychotic trying to kill off the crew.
Until Dave Bowman an Angry Astronaught with a Screw Driver finds a way to defeat him.Space: Above and Beyond it was canceled before it started to get good.
Have the Earthers violate the Chig colonies that starts up a war, but the Space Marines are not aware of that fact until they discover it later that Xenophobic leaders and military had done the Chigs dirty and that is what started the war.
Then see if it has a different ending, does everyone in the Angry Angels die, survive, make a truce with the Chigs, or get captured as POWS and another Space Marine group has to rescue them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728388</id>
	<title>Lensman.</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1263203400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Lensmen series, done well, would be mind blowing, IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Lensmen series , done well , would be mind blowing , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Lensmen series, done well, would be mind blowing, IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727258</id>
	<title>Star Blazers</title>
	<author>Tepar</author>
	<datestamp>1263242880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Used to race home from school to watch this. I wanted them to fire the wave motion gun in every episode.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) </p><p>http://www.starblazers.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Used to race home from school to watch this .
I wanted them to fire the wave motion gun in every episode .
: - ) http : //www.starblazers.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Used to race home from school to watch this.
I wanted them to fire the wave motion gun in every episode.
:-) http://www.starblazers.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730386</id>
	<title>Is rebooting a good thing ?</title>
	<author>kegon</author>
	<datestamp>1263210960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, how many reboots have been good, ever ? I can count them on one hand: BSG, Smallville, um, er... I absolutely agree: Doing something new would be a much, much better idea.</p><p>BSG was really well done if you can ignore the ending: When they got to Earth and found it was devasted, that was inspired. Then we should have seen Bill Adama wandering around the beach they visited, cut to Colonel Tigh saying "Frak!", the end. Would have been a whole lot better then the mish mash they cobbled together afterwards.</p><p>Batman Begins was like a reboot of a reboot. The first Tim Burton one was good but I didn't like the Joker that much. After that it got dull very quickly, the scriptwriters seemed to forget what kind of character he is. Jump forward to the reboot; well it's not bad but I was really hoping to see how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Instead, he disappears to China and all of a sudden he is a pretty good fighter and all round tough guy who just needs a bit of ninja training.</p><p>Superman Returns was pants. Should have been a Smallville movie. Or not. Anyway, any one episode of Smallville is 10x better than that movie. Star Trek TNG was good if you consider it a reboot; but Enterprise, not so good. What were they thinking ? And we all know what happened with the Star Wars reboots: Han didn't shoot first, WTF ?</p><p>I think the reboot I am least looking forward to is Predator. It's going to be difficult for them not to ruin a classic movie. One reboot that might be good, is Tron, but only because the original was too ambitious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how many reboots have been good , ever ?
I can count them on one hand : BSG , Smallville , um , er... I absolutely agree : Doing something new would be a much , much better idea.BSG was really well done if you can ignore the ending : When they got to Earth and found it was devasted , that was inspired .
Then we should have seen Bill Adama wandering around the beach they visited , cut to Colonel Tigh saying " Frak !
" , the end .
Would have been a whole lot better then the mish mash they cobbled together afterwards.Batman Begins was like a reboot of a reboot .
The first Tim Burton one was good but I did n't like the Joker that much .
After that it got dull very quickly , the scriptwriters seemed to forget what kind of character he is .
Jump forward to the reboot ; well it 's not bad but I was really hoping to see how Bruce Wayne became Batman .
Instead , he disappears to China and all of a sudden he is a pretty good fighter and all round tough guy who just needs a bit of ninja training.Superman Returns was pants .
Should have been a Smallville movie .
Or not .
Anyway , any one episode of Smallville is 10x better than that movie .
Star Trek TNG was good if you consider it a reboot ; but Enterprise , not so good .
What were they thinking ?
And we all know what happened with the Star Wars reboots : Han did n't shoot first , WTF ? I think the reboot I am least looking forward to is Predator .
It 's going to be difficult for them not to ruin a classic movie .
One reboot that might be good , is Tron , but only because the original was too ambitious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how many reboots have been good, ever ?
I can count them on one hand: BSG, Smallville, um, er... I absolutely agree: Doing something new would be a much, much better idea.BSG was really well done if you can ignore the ending: When they got to Earth and found it was devasted, that was inspired.
Then we should have seen Bill Adama wandering around the beach they visited, cut to Colonel Tigh saying "Frak!
", the end.
Would have been a whole lot better then the mish mash they cobbled together afterwards.Batman Begins was like a reboot of a reboot.
The first Tim Burton one was good but I didn't like the Joker that much.
After that it got dull very quickly, the scriptwriters seemed to forget what kind of character he is.
Jump forward to the reboot; well it's not bad but I was really hoping to see how Bruce Wayne became Batman.
Instead, he disappears to China and all of a sudden he is a pretty good fighter and all round tough guy who just needs a bit of ninja training.Superman Returns was pants.
Should have been a Smallville movie.
Or not.
Anyway, any one episode of Smallville is 10x better than that movie.
Star Trek TNG was good if you consider it a reboot; but Enterprise, not so good.
What were they thinking ?
And we all know what happened with the Star Wars reboots: Han didn't shoot first, WTF ?I think the reboot I am least looking forward to is Predator.
It's going to be difficult for them not to ruin a classic movie.
One reboot that might be good, is Tron, but only because the original was too ambitious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728064</id>
	<title>Re:Max Headroom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263202140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>right there with you. I'd love to see a reboot of that show. Not necessarily like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWdgAMYjYSs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>right there with you .
I 'd love to see a reboot of that show .
Not necessarily like this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = tWdgAMYjYSs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>right there with you.
I'd love to see a reboot of that show.
Not necessarily like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWdgAMYjYSs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728320</id>
	<title>Re:War of the Worlds, the series, Alien Nation</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1263203100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A reboot of Alien Nation would just be an episodic version of District 9.  No thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A reboot of Alien Nation would just be an episodic version of District 9 .
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reboot of Alien Nation would just be an episodic version of District 9.
No thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741344</id>
	<title>Firefly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263327480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefly.</p><p>I don't care how sick most of you are of hearing it (my friends are too), I love that show and always will keep hope alive for more Firefly content to be produced.</p><p>Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the skies from me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefly.I do n't care how sick most of you are of hearing it ( my friends are too ) , I love that show and always will keep hope alive for more Firefly content to be produced.Burn the land and boil the sea , you ca n't take the skies from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefly.I don't care how sick most of you are of hearing it (my friends are too), I love that show and always will keep hope alive for more Firefly content to be produced.Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the skies from me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728766</id>
	<title>SF != Battlestar Galactica</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1263204600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone is well aware that Hollywood can't seem to get away from attempts to recreate the last successful show to come along of course, but I really hope they lose the idea that every new show must be done in the style of Battlestar Galactica to ensure it will be popular. That show worked - although personally I only ever watched about half a season if it, I do intend to watch it eventually and I could see its potential.<br>I am watching Stargate:Universe now as my wife and I are longtime fans of Stargate (despite a lot of cheesiness at times), and I have to say its awful so far. Awful because they have tried to create the same atmosphere as BG, and as a result none of the characters are likeable and I care about none of them. Everything is conflict and every character is a bit of an asshole and thats the best thing you can say about any of them.<br>BG remade worked well because they had an original style and presentation and good writing. That isn't a formula for success, though. Not every show needs to be BG repeated. Let some originality shine through - of course this is Hollywood where originality is often strangled at birth I know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone is well aware that Hollywood ca n't seem to get away from attempts to recreate the last successful show to come along of course , but I really hope they lose the idea that every new show must be done in the style of Battlestar Galactica to ensure it will be popular .
That show worked - although personally I only ever watched about half a season if it , I do intend to watch it eventually and I could see its potential.I am watching Stargate : Universe now as my wife and I are longtime fans of Stargate ( despite a lot of cheesiness at times ) , and I have to say its awful so far .
Awful because they have tried to create the same atmosphere as BG , and as a result none of the characters are likeable and I care about none of them .
Everything is conflict and every character is a bit of an asshole and thats the best thing you can say about any of them.BG remade worked well because they had an original style and presentation and good writing .
That is n't a formula for success , though .
Not every show needs to be BG repeated .
Let some originality shine through - of course this is Hollywood where originality is often strangled at birth I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone is well aware that Hollywood can't seem to get away from attempts to recreate the last successful show to come along of course, but I really hope they lose the idea that every new show must be done in the style of Battlestar Galactica to ensure it will be popular.
That show worked - although personally I only ever watched about half a season if it, I do intend to watch it eventually and I could see its potential.I am watching Stargate:Universe now as my wife and I are longtime fans of Stargate (despite a lot of cheesiness at times), and I have to say its awful so far.
Awful because they have tried to create the same atmosphere as BG, and as a result none of the characters are likeable and I care about none of them.
Everything is conflict and every character is a bit of an asshole and thats the best thing you can say about any of them.BG remade worked well because they had an original style and presentation and good writing.
That isn't a formula for success, though.
Not every show needs to be BG repeated.
Let some originality shine through - of course this is Hollywood where originality is often strangled at birth I know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732554</id>
	<title>robotech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263224640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Robotech anyone? I know there's talk of a live action movie but I'd much rather see it as a BSG-style series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Robotech anyone ?
I know there 's talk of a live action movie but I 'd much rather see it as a BSG-style series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robotech anyone?
I know there's talk of a live action movie but I'd much rather see it as a BSG-style series.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731162</id>
	<title>Dune</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Throw out the move and that awful mini-series. Revealing some of the wonderfully captured Jihand and religious/political/economic issues of a desert war over scarce resources would be... oh, wait, never mind, the 6 o'clock news is on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Throw out the move and that awful mini-series .
Revealing some of the wonderfully captured Jihand and religious/political/economic issues of a desert war over scarce resources would be... oh , wait , never mind , the 6 o'clock news is on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throw out the move and that awful mini-series.
Revealing some of the wonderfully captured Jihand and religious/political/economic issues of a desert war over scarce resources would be... oh, wait, never mind, the 6 o'clock news is on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726638</id>
	<title>And the correct answer is...</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1263241020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None. Come up with some new ideas already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None .
Come up with some new ideas already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None.
Come up with some new ideas already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727488</id>
	<title>Wht redo stuff</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1263243480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When theres a heap of good SF books that (with the aid of modern CGI) could be put on screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When theres a heap of good SF books that ( with the aid of modern CGI ) could be put on screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When theres a heap of good SF books that (with the aid of modern CGI) could be put on screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727682</id>
	<title>Edmond Hamilton's Captain Future</title>
	<author>WormholeFiend</author>
	<datestamp>1263200880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain\_Future" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain\_Future</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain \ _Future [ wikipedia.org ] That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain\_Future [wikipedia.org]That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727134</id>
	<title>Logan's Run</title>
	<author>Eglembor</author>
	<datestamp>1263242520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Logan's Run could use some reboot loving it was a fairly entertaining serie with potential for some good "revival"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Logan 's Run could use some reboot loving it was a fairly entertaining serie with potential for some good " revival "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logan's Run could use some reboot loving it was a fairly entertaining serie with potential for some good "revival"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730584</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1263211920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefly was nice, but if they can get the money to complete the movies, it doesn't need a reboot.</p></div><p>The movie already wrapped everything up (though not terribly well). Firefly needs to be a series, not a movie. I'd rather forget that the movie happened and continue where the series left off.</p><p>(Not that the movie is so terrible. It's not. It was very good considering the circumstances, but it's really not nearly as good as the TV series was.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefly was nice , but if they can get the money to complete the movies , it does n't need a reboot.The movie already wrapped everything up ( though not terribly well ) .
Firefly needs to be a series , not a movie .
I 'd rather forget that the movie happened and continue where the series left off .
( Not that the movie is so terrible .
It 's not .
It was very good considering the circumstances , but it 's really not nearly as good as the TV series was .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefly was nice, but if they can get the money to complete the movies, it doesn't need a reboot.The movie already wrapped everything up (though not terribly well).
Firefly needs to be a series, not a movie.
I'd rather forget that the movie happened and continue where the series left off.
(Not that the movie is so terrible.
It's not.
It was very good considering the circumstances, but it's really not nearly as good as the TV series was.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728724</id>
	<title>How about SciFi itself?</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1263204480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Changing the name to Syfy is an obvious sign they have jumped a whole school(?) Of sharks. (too lazy to look up what a group of sharks are...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing the name to Syfy is an obvious sign they have jumped a whole school ( ?
) Of sharks .
( too lazy to look up what a group of sharks are... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing the name to Syfy is an obvious sign they have jumped a whole school(?
) Of sharks.
(too lazy to look up what a group of sharks are...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728132</id>
	<title>Cyberpunk</title>
	<author>Aggrajag</author>
	<datestamp>1263202380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to see Neuromancer: the mini-series.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see Neuromancer : the mini-series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see Neuromancer: the mini-series.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726966</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1263241980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another vote for "none"; there are plenty of books and comics out there just crying out for being made into movies or series.  Personally, I'd like to see someone tackle Richard Morgan's "Altered Carbon" trilogy as an after-the-watershed show so they don't have to shirk away from some of the more brutal moments; three movies or a "based-on" series works for me, although the latter might need some work given the need to continually re-cast the actor playing the main protagonist, Takeshi Kovacs.<br> <br>

Why remake a series when they can re-run at least some of the originals episodes if they want to?  In fact, for some series I wish they *would* re-run the originals, some of the classic "Doctor Who", "Outer Limits", "Twilight Zone" episodes for a start...  Assuming, of course, that the original media hasn't been lost or allowed to perish like happened with some of the Hartnell/Troughton era Dr. Who episodes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another vote for " none " ; there are plenty of books and comics out there just crying out for being made into movies or series .
Personally , I 'd like to see someone tackle Richard Morgan 's " Altered Carbon " trilogy as an after-the-watershed show so they do n't have to shirk away from some of the more brutal moments ; three movies or a " based-on " series works for me , although the latter might need some work given the need to continually re-cast the actor playing the main protagonist , Takeshi Kovacs .
Why remake a series when they can re-run at least some of the originals episodes if they want to ?
In fact , for some series I wish they * would * re-run the originals , some of the classic " Doctor Who " , " Outer Limits " , " Twilight Zone " episodes for a start... Assuming , of course , that the original media has n't been lost or allowed to perish like happened with some of the Hartnell/Troughton era Dr. Who episodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another vote for "none"; there are plenty of books and comics out there just crying out for being made into movies or series.
Personally, I'd like to see someone tackle Richard Morgan's "Altered Carbon" trilogy as an after-the-watershed show so they don't have to shirk away from some of the more brutal moments; three movies or a "based-on" series works for me, although the latter might need some work given the need to continually re-cast the actor playing the main protagonist, Takeshi Kovacs.
Why remake a series when they can re-run at least some of the originals episodes if they want to?
In fact, for some series I wish they *would* re-run the originals, some of the classic "Doctor Who", "Outer Limits", "Twilight Zone" episodes for a start...  Assuming, of course, that the original media hasn't been lost or allowed to perish like happened with some of the Hartnell/Troughton era Dr. Who episodes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026</id>
	<title>B5: Crusade</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1263242160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always wanted to see this series completed. never happened. and the series had issues, like the music, and the main actor was Mr. Brady from the Brady Bunch movies, but it had potential until TNT execs tried to turn it into "Wrestlemania/Sexromp in Space"... ironically, SyFy channel has since been plagued by the meme of the same execs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always wanted to see this series completed .
never happened .
and the series had issues , like the music , and the main actor was Mr. Brady from the Brady Bunch movies , but it had potential until TNT execs tried to turn it into " Wrestlemania/Sexromp in Space " ... ironically , SyFy channel has since been plagued by the meme of the same execs .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always wanted to see this series completed.
never happened.
and the series had issues, like the music, and the main actor was Mr. Brady from the Brady Bunch movies, but it had potential until TNT execs tried to turn it into "Wrestlemania/Sexromp in Space"... ironically, SyFy channel has since been plagued by the meme of the same execs.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731580</id>
	<title>YES!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263217740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd definitely go for a Hyperion series.  Or how about "Pandora's Star".  Or "Ender's Game"... good stuff, and (of course) ignored by hollywood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd definitely go for a Hyperion series .
Or how about " Pandora 's Star " .
Or " Ender 's Game " ... good stuff , and ( of course ) ignored by hollywood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd definitely go for a Hyperion series.
Or how about "Pandora's Star".
Or "Ender's Game"... good stuff, and (of course) ignored by hollywood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727562</id>
	<title>Takeshi Kovacs</title>
	<author>witherstaff</author>
	<datestamp>1263200460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uplift would make an amazing set of movies. Although for action/sci fi my hope would be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeshi\_Kovacs" title="wikipedia.org">Takeshi Kovacs trilogy</a> [wikipedia.org]. Everything from a detective story to martian ghosts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uplift would make an amazing set of movies .
Although for action/sci fi my hope would be a Takeshi Kovacs trilogy [ wikipedia.org ] .
Everything from a detective story to martian ghosts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uplift would make an amazing set of movies.
Although for action/sci fi my hope would be a Takeshi Kovacs trilogy [wikipedia.org].
Everything from a detective story to martian ghosts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730786</id>
	<title>Re:The Starlost</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1263213000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hear! Hear!  Earthship Ark, a generation ship made up of a bunch of interconnected biodomes, each of which would take about three days to walk across.  An accident of some form takes out the bridge, and a couple of the fusion reactors.  Radiation causes the biodomes to be sealed off from each other, and over the centuries it takes for the radiation to clear, the cultures within the various domes have progressed (or regressed) in various ways.<br> <br>
Three people from the biodome <i>Cypress Corners</i>, a strict religious agrarian culture much like Mennonite/Amish, escape from the repressive leadership and find themselves in the supply tubes interconnecting the biodomes.  As they travel, they discover that they are on a space ship, not on a planet, and they further discover that the ship is on a collision course with a star.  As they travel to try to get help to get the Ark back on course, they meet many of the strange cultures that have grown up inside the isolated domes and the radiation poisoned tubes.<br> <br>
I don't know about getting Ellison to do it, though.  He may be a brilliant writer, but he is abrasive, argumentative,  and "possibly the most contentious person on Earth".  Someone who could fly off the handle if things don't go his way is not someone you really want involved in a project.  On the other hand, he is also also well known for being litigious, so having him on the project may keep you out of the court room.  Plus, he is a brilliant writer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear !
Hear ! Earthship Ark , a generation ship made up of a bunch of interconnected biodomes , each of which would take about three days to walk across .
An accident of some form takes out the bridge , and a couple of the fusion reactors .
Radiation causes the biodomes to be sealed off from each other , and over the centuries it takes for the radiation to clear , the cultures within the various domes have progressed ( or regressed ) in various ways .
Three people from the biodome Cypress Corners , a strict religious agrarian culture much like Mennonite/Amish , escape from the repressive leadership and find themselves in the supply tubes interconnecting the biodomes .
As they travel , they discover that they are on a space ship , not on a planet , and they further discover that the ship is on a collision course with a star .
As they travel to try to get help to get the Ark back on course , they meet many of the strange cultures that have grown up inside the isolated domes and the radiation poisoned tubes .
I do n't know about getting Ellison to do it , though .
He may be a brilliant writer , but he is abrasive , argumentative , and " possibly the most contentious person on Earth " .
Someone who could fly off the handle if things do n't go his way is not someone you really want involved in a project .
On the other hand , he is also also well known for being litigious , so having him on the project may keep you out of the court room .
Plus , he is a brilliant writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear!
Hear!  Earthship Ark, a generation ship made up of a bunch of interconnected biodomes, each of which would take about three days to walk across.
An accident of some form takes out the bridge, and a couple of the fusion reactors.
Radiation causes the biodomes to be sealed off from each other, and over the centuries it takes for the radiation to clear, the cultures within the various domes have progressed (or regressed) in various ways.
Three people from the biodome Cypress Corners, a strict religious agrarian culture much like Mennonite/Amish, escape from the repressive leadership and find themselves in the supply tubes interconnecting the biodomes.
As they travel, they discover that they are on a space ship, not on a planet, and they further discover that the ship is on a collision course with a star.
As they travel to try to get help to get the Ark back on course, they meet many of the strange cultures that have grown up inside the isolated domes and the radiation poisoned tubes.
I don't know about getting Ellison to do it, though.
He may be a brilliant writer, but he is abrasive, argumentative,  and "possibly the most contentious person on Earth".
Someone who could fly off the handle if things don't go his way is not someone you really want involved in a project.
On the other hand, he is also also well known for being litigious, so having him on the project may keep you out of the court room.
Plus, he is a brilliant writer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727232</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1263242820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the tortured boy could make sense - just as much as it would for people who'd been away for too long. He became a reaver because it was the only way he could cope with what he saw. Not from being away from society, or "in the black" too long.</p><p>Different causes, same symptoms.<br><a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/11/1629214#" title="slashdot.org">http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/11/1629214#</a> [slashdot.org]<br>Miranda would have been fine in a setting that wasn't based on one star system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the tortured boy could make sense - just as much as it would for people who 'd been away for too long .
He became a reaver because it was the only way he could cope with what he saw .
Not from being away from society , or " in the black " too long.Different causes , same symptoms.http : //ask.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 10/01/11/1629214 # [ slashdot.org ] Miranda would have been fine in a setting that was n't based on one star system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the tortured boy could make sense - just as much as it would for people who'd been away for too long.
He became a reaver because it was the only way he could cope with what he saw.
Not from being away from society, or "in the black" too long.Different causes, same symptoms.http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/11/1629214# [slashdot.org]Miranda would have been fine in a setting that wasn't based on one star system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728308</id>
	<title>Galactica 1980</title>
	<author>CongealedSalad</author>
	<datestamp>1263203040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactica\_1980" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Galactica 1980</a> [wikipedia.org] would have been an awesome series, if it had been well funded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Galactica 1980 [ wikipedia.org ] would have been an awesome series , if it had been well funded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Galactica 1980 [wikipedia.org] would have been an awesome series, if it had been well funded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728648</id>
	<title>Re:Mostly, regurgitated shit will still be shit</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1263204240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the only MST3K episodes that were broadcast in the UK (depending on how you mean that term) were on the Sci Fi Channel's international channels.</p><p>As for the Starlost, I am not sure what you mean by "annoying kids."  There weren't any kids in that series that remember.  Harlan Ellison wrote the book for the series and he disowned it early on because his ideas were basically ripped apart during development.  It still has good concepts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the only MST3K episodes that were broadcast in the UK ( depending on how you mean that term ) were on the Sci Fi Channel 's international channels.As for the Starlost , I am not sure what you mean by " annoying kids .
" There were n't any kids in that series that remember .
Harlan Ellison wrote the book for the series and he disowned it early on because his ideas were basically ripped apart during development .
It still has good concepts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the only MST3K episodes that were broadcast in the UK (depending on how you mean that term) were on the Sci Fi Channel's international channels.As for the Starlost, I am not sure what you mean by "annoying kids.
"  There weren't any kids in that series that remember.
Harlan Ellison wrote the book for the series and he disowned it early on because his ideas were basically ripped apart during development.
It still has good concepts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727520</id>
	<title>How about another "unknown"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263243540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sentenced to Prism  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentenced\_to\_Prism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentenced\_to\_Prism</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>Alan Dean Foster...  with the CGI available now this could be a truely beautiful work</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sentenced to Prism http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentenced \ _to \ _Prism [ wikipedia.org ] Alan Dean Foster... with the CGI available now this could be a truely beautiful work</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sentenced to Prism  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentenced\_to\_Prism [wikipedia.org]Alan Dean Foster...  with the CGI available now this could be a truely beautiful work</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729536</id>
	<title>Soylent Green: the Musical</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1263207420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Soylent Green: the Musical?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Soylent Green : the Musical ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Soylent Green: the Musical?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read recently that BBC is actually considering a reboot of that one, but at the moment I can't find a reference - so it was probably word of mouth. If not, I agree, that definitely needs a reboot. I remember watching that one after Dr. Who on PBS and loved it.</p><p>It certainly fits better than too many shows on that list that are too recent to be in reboot country IMO. Babylon 5 is definitely the most recent I would put in the reboot category. Firefly was nice, but if they can get the money to complete the movies, it doesn't need a reboot.</p><p>Others are just way too recent IMO (Roswell, Lexx).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read recently that BBC is actually considering a reboot of that one , but at the moment I ca n't find a reference - so it was probably word of mouth .
If not , I agree , that definitely needs a reboot .
I remember watching that one after Dr. Who on PBS and loved it.It certainly fits better than too many shows on that list that are too recent to be in reboot country IMO .
Babylon 5 is definitely the most recent I would put in the reboot category .
Firefly was nice , but if they can get the money to complete the movies , it does n't need a reboot.Others are just way too recent IMO ( Roswell , Lexx ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read recently that BBC is actually considering a reboot of that one, but at the moment I can't find a reference - so it was probably word of mouth.
If not, I agree, that definitely needs a reboot.
I remember watching that one after Dr. Who on PBS and loved it.It certainly fits better than too many shows on that list that are too recent to be in reboot country IMO.
Babylon 5 is definitely the most recent I would put in the reboot category.
Firefly was nice, but if they can get the money to complete the movies, it doesn't need a reboot.Others are just way too recent IMO (Roswell, Lexx).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735226</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1263298860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about Iain Banks or Alastair Reynolds? And i would  recommend they write something *for the silver screen* rather than try to adapt something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Iain Banks or Alastair Reynolds ?
And i would recommend they write something * for the silver screen * rather than try to adapt something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Iain Banks or Alastair Reynolds?
And i would  recommend they write something *for the silver screen* rather than try to adapt something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730056</id>
	<title>Starship Troopers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I  enjoyed the book and was shocked to see how badly Hollywood mangled it.  They turned the first movie into a teeny-bopper romp and I couldnt even sit through the second (and I really like bad movies).  The powered armor was completely omitted and the book also had a fairly deep discussion about what it meant to be a citizen.  A complete travesty even by Hollywood standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I enjoyed the book and was shocked to see how badly Hollywood mangled it .
They turned the first movie into a teeny-bopper romp and I couldnt even sit through the second ( and I really like bad movies ) .
The powered armor was completely omitted and the book also had a fairly deep discussion about what it meant to be a citizen .
A complete travesty even by Hollywood standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I  enjoyed the book and was shocked to see how badly Hollywood mangled it.
They turned the first movie into a teeny-bopper romp and I couldnt even sit through the second (and I really like bad movies).
The powered armor was completely omitted and the book also had a fairly deep discussion about what it meant to be a citizen.
A complete travesty even by Hollywood standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727980</id>
	<title>Space, Above and Beyond</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Above\_and\_Beyond" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Above\_and\_Beyond</a> [wikipedia.org]

Cool stories, action, aliens, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space \ _Above \ _and \ _Beyond [ wikipedia.org ] Cool stories , action , aliens , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Above\_and\_Beyond [wikipedia.org]

Cool stories, action, aliens, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730966</id>
	<title>StarBlazers (aka Battleship Yamamoto)</title>
	<author>wsgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263213900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>StarBlazers!!!! Come on, this would be AWESOME.  I liked this show far more than RoboTech and I hear that's getting the big-scren treatment... Toby MacGuire, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>StarBlazers ! ! ! !
Come on , this would be AWESOME .
I liked this show far more than RoboTech and I hear that 's getting the big-scren treatment... Toby MacGuire , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>StarBlazers!!!!
Come on, this would be AWESOME.
I liked this show far more than RoboTech and I hear that's getting the big-scren treatment... Toby MacGuire, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730468</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Keeper Of Keys</author>
	<datestamp>1263211320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think that ending sealed the story you shut then you're *really* not familiar with Joss Whedon's work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think that ending sealed the story you shut then you 're * really * not familiar with Joss Whedon 's work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think that ending sealed the story you shut then you're *really* not familiar with Joss Whedon's work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728606</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263204120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too. Perhaps we could make a new enemy?</p></div><p>
I nominate kdawson...the biggest advantage is that it has that whole, evil but insider to the good guys' organization twist going for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole " Evil Bill " thing got old too .
Perhaps we could make a new enemy ?
I nominate kdawson...the biggest advantage is that it has that whole , evil but insider to the good guys ' organization twist going for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too.
Perhaps we could make a new enemy?
I nominate kdawson...the biggest advantage is that it has that whole, evil but insider to the good guys' organization twist going for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727040</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1263242220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy\_of\_the\_Aldenata" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy\_of\_the\_Aldenata</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Plenty of shoot em up with the Posleen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy \ _of \ _the \ _Aldenata [ wikipedia.org ] Plenty of shoot em up with the Posleen .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy\_of\_the\_Aldenata [wikipedia.org]Plenty of shoot em up with the Posleen ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729428</id>
	<title>Re:There is only one worthy</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1263206940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe a Stainless Steel Rat series?</p></div><p>One word:</p><p><b>Retief</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe a Stainless Steel Rat series ? One word : Retief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe a Stainless Steel Rat series?One word:Retief.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728182</id>
	<title>Crossing Over with John Edward</title>
	<author>guitardood</author>
	<datestamp>1263202560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to see "Crossing Over with John Edward" get the reboot.........ooops   I mean theboot.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)   I mean this show had nothing to do with Sci-Fi.....Nor does WWE Smackdown for that matter.  There will be no good sci-fi so long as morons are in charge of what gets produced.  And speaking of reboot......don't we have anybody creating original ideas any more??   Special effects does not an interesting story make and the only reason for these reboots are to suck our pockets dry on big-screen candy and the same old tired drivel.    Have a nice day:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see " Crossing Over with John Edward " get the reboot.........ooops I mean theboot .
: ) I mean this show had nothing to do with Sci-Fi.....Nor does WWE Smackdown for that matter .
There will be no good sci-fi so long as morons are in charge of what gets produced .
And speaking of reboot......do n't we have anybody creating original ideas any more ? ?
Special effects does not an interesting story make and the only reason for these reboots are to suck our pockets dry on big-screen candy and the same old tired drivel .
Have a nice day : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see "Crossing Over with John Edward" get the reboot.........ooops   I mean theboot.
:)   I mean this show had nothing to do with Sci-Fi.....Nor does WWE Smackdown for that matter.
There will be no good sci-fi so long as morons are in charge of what gets produced.
And speaking of reboot......don't we have anybody creating original ideas any more??
Special effects does not an interesting story make and the only reason for these reboots are to suck our pockets dry on big-screen candy and the same old tired drivel.
Have a nice day:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726774</id>
	<title>The Tripods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...although supposedly a movie is in development, slated for a 2012 release.  I think a series/mini-series might be a better fit for the subject matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...although supposedly a movie is in development , slated for a 2012 release .
I think a series/mini-series might be a better fit for the subject matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...although supposedly a movie is in development, slated for a 2012 release.
I think a series/mini-series might be a better fit for the subject matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730636</id>
	<title>Re:Max Headroom</title>
	<author>/.Rooster</author>
	<datestamp>1263212220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.. the early episodes focusing on the mass consumerism of viewers viewing habits not to mention the digital divide between the have and have nots was awesome. However not sure anyone could really fill Matt Frewer's shoes in that respect as it is hard to do a wacky Max without looking like a complete idiot. Still the stories were awesome and way ahead of it's time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed.. the early episodes focusing on the mass consumerism of viewers viewing habits not to mention the digital divide between the have and have nots was awesome .
However not sure anyone could really fill Matt Frewer 's shoes in that respect as it is hard to do a wacky Max without looking like a complete idiot .
Still the stories were awesome and way ahead of it 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.. the early episodes focusing on the mass consumerism of viewers viewing habits not to mention the digital divide between the have and have nots was awesome.
However not sure anyone could really fill Matt Frewer's shoes in that respect as it is hard to do a wacky Max without looking like a complete idiot.
Still the stories were awesome and way ahead of it's time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727872</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1263201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not looking to rationalize this, but its easy to forget 'Miranda, that poor place that got took over by the Reavers, and the Alliance didn't do anything about it'.</p><p>You could probably tell one season's worth of stories post Objects in Space and before Serenity.</p><p>Does anybody want to know what happened to Jubal Early?</p><p>The Reaver Kid is a really freaky form of Stockholm Syndrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not looking to rationalize this , but its easy to forget 'Miranda , that poor place that got took over by the Reavers , and the Alliance did n't do anything about it'.You could probably tell one season 's worth of stories post Objects in Space and before Serenity.Does anybody want to know what happened to Jubal Early ? The Reaver Kid is a really freaky form of Stockholm Syndrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not looking to rationalize this, but its easy to forget 'Miranda, that poor place that got took over by the Reavers, and the Alliance didn't do anything about it'.You could probably tell one season's worth of stories post Objects in Space and before Serenity.Does anybody want to know what happened to Jubal Early?The Reaver Kid is a really freaky form of Stockholm Syndrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730728</id>
	<title>While on the topic of rebooting...</title>
	<author>jmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263212760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...can we reboot a few book series?</p><p>Loved Rendezvous with Rama (something that still needs to be made into a movie). The books that came after, not so much. The fourth book is cringe worthy bad.<br>The Foundation series, with the right author, could be continued. Not going to say that would be easy, but Second Foundation Trilogy put out a few years ago didn't really go anywhere.<br>I haven't read all of the Ringworld series yet, but I feel it hasn't aged quite as well. Maybe not a reboot, just some rewriting?</p><p>On the other hand there needs to be a stop to all the endless Star Wars and Star Trek novels being pumped out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...can we reboot a few book series ? Loved Rendezvous with Rama ( something that still needs to be made into a movie ) .
The books that came after , not so much .
The fourth book is cringe worthy bad.The Foundation series , with the right author , could be continued .
Not going to say that would be easy , but Second Foundation Trilogy put out a few years ago did n't really go anywhere.I have n't read all of the Ringworld series yet , but I feel it has n't aged quite as well .
Maybe not a reboot , just some rewriting ? On the other hand there needs to be a stop to all the endless Star Wars and Star Trek novels being pumped out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...can we reboot a few book series?Loved Rendezvous with Rama (something that still needs to be made into a movie).
The books that came after, not so much.
The fourth book is cringe worthy bad.The Foundation series, with the right author, could be continued.
Not going to say that would be easy, but Second Foundation Trilogy put out a few years ago didn't really go anywhere.I haven't read all of the Ringworld series yet, but I feel it hasn't aged quite as well.
Maybe not a reboot, just some rewriting?On the other hand there needs to be a stop to all the endless Star Wars and Star Trek novels being pumped out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726838</id>
	<title>Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"?</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1263241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mind boggles: We are reading an article about another article about which TV Shows should be re-done.  Is there not one self-respecting Creator of Original Stuff left?  Is this why Young People Today are so angry about the length of copyright?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mind boggles : We are reading an article about another article about which TV Shows should be re-done .
Is there not one self-respecting Creator of Original Stuff left ?
Is this why Young People Today are so angry about the length of copyright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mind boggles: We are reading an article about another article about which TV Shows should be re-done.
Is there not one self-respecting Creator of Original Stuff left?
Is this why Young People Today are so angry about the length of copyright?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727446</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1263243360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>I know there's long been talk of  making a film or television adaptation of it</p></div></blockquote></div><p> <a href="http://www.themovieinsider.com/m4713/hyperion-cantos-/" title="themovieinsider.com">http://www.themovieinsider.com/m4713/hyperion-cantos-/</a> [themovieinsider.com]
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213645/" title="imdb.com">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213645/</a> [imdb.com]
<br> <br>
I think it's more than talk now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there 's long been talk of making a film or television adaptation of it http : //www.themovieinsider.com/m4713/hyperion-cantos-/ [ themovieinsider.com ] http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt1213645/ [ imdb.com ] I think it 's more than talk now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there's long been talk of  making a film or television adaptation of it http://www.themovieinsider.com/m4713/hyperion-cantos-/ [themovieinsider.com]
 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213645/ [imdb.com]
 
I think it's more than talk now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727000</id>
	<title>Re:How about Rebooting Reboot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A canadian animation that took place in</p></div><p>I agree on the sentiment...</p><p>But it was inside a Computer, not a game console.  The "User" just happened to like playing the occasional game.</p><p>I believe they said it out right in an episode, plus one day they were all impatiently waiting for a new upgrade.</p><p>Then again I could be wrong.</p><p>Fun series.  They continued via a Comic a little later, but I hadn't heard of a revitalization.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A canadian animation that took place inI agree on the sentiment...But it was inside a Computer , not a game console .
The " User " just happened to like playing the occasional game.I believe they said it out right in an episode , plus one day they were all impatiently waiting for a new upgrade.Then again I could be wrong.Fun series .
They continued via a Comic a little later , but I had n't heard of a revitalization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A canadian animation that took place inI agree on the sentiment...But it was inside a Computer, not a game console.
The "User" just happened to like playing the occasional game.I believe they said it out right in an episode, plus one day they were all impatiently waiting for a new upgrade.Then again I could be wrong.Fun series.
They continued via a Comic a little later, but I hadn't heard of a revitalization.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727316</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>dlaudel</author>
	<datestamp>1263242940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh yea, and drop that whole "all the planets orbiting one sun" nonsense since it isn't workable. Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball \_or\_ the "inner planets" would be molten slag.</p><p>

It was their way dealing with the issue of no FTL travel. And a rather good one at that. Partly terraformed planets led to the many barren landscapes they visited, and they could get to another planet/moon within a reasonable amount of time (ie, before they run out of food and water).</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yea , and drop that whole " all the planets orbiting one sun " nonsense since it is n't workable .
Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball \ _or \ _ the " inner planets " would be molten slag .
It was their way dealing with the issue of no FTL travel .
And a rather good one at that .
Partly terraformed planets led to the many barren landscapes they visited , and they could get to another planet/moon within a reasonable amount of time ( ie , before they run out of food and water ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yea, and drop that whole "all the planets orbiting one sun" nonsense since it isn't workable.
Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball \_or\_ the "inner planets" would be molten slag.
It was their way dealing with the issue of no FTL travel.
And a rather good one at that.
Partly terraformed planets led to the many barren landscapes they visited, and they could get to another planet/moon within a reasonable amount of time (ie, before they run out of food and water).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728026</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1263202080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That and un-kill Wash and Sheppard Book.</p></div><p>Yes, please.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh, and get rid of the whole Miranda bullshit. The people who ply the lanes of space would neither "overlook" nor "forget" an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years. Nor could such a thing be hidden as, outer-most or not, it would show up on everybody's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots. Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.</p></div><p>Knowing there's a body there and knowing there's a colony there are two different things.  It can easily be "hidden" simply by being lost in the crowd.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh yea, and drop that whole "all the planets orbiting one sun" nonsense since it isn't workable. Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball \_or\_ the "inner planets" would be molten slag.</p></div><p>Really?  What is the stellar type of the main star, and the size of the "Goldilocks zone"?  Since neither of there are defined in the series, your speculation above has no basis.  There's no reason to think the system they're in doesn't have a Goldilocks zone large enough for hundreds of planets, when it's explicitly stated that it does and there's no scientific reason to reject that idea.  Not to mention many if not most of these worlds could easily be moons of gas giants.  Each "super-Jupiter" could have dozens of habitable worlds orbiting it, not to mention a few worlds at each trojan point.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I could have come up with a better "reason for the reavers" in my sleep. The original one from the series (mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc) was good enough. Hell, the movie contradicted the series directly. If the Pax caused reaverdom, the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudln't have worked unless the reavers carry a supply of the otherwise secret Pax around and deliberately pre-expose potential recruits to it before deciding who to kill, rape, and eat (in that order, if you're really lucky).</p></div><p>It doesn't need to be deliberate.  I can come up with three different reasons in my sleep why they'd be unintentionally exposing anyone they bring aboard one of their ships.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That and un-kill Wash and Sheppard Book.Yes , please.Oh , and get rid of the whole Miranda bullshit .
The people who ply the lanes of space would neither " overlook " nor " forget " an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years .
Nor could such a thing be hidden as , outer-most or not , it would show up on everybody 's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots .
Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.Knowing there 's a body there and knowing there 's a colony there are two different things .
It can easily be " hidden " simply by being lost in the crowd.Oh yea , and drop that whole " all the planets orbiting one sun " nonsense since it is n't workable .
Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball \ _or \ _ the " inner planets " would be molten slag.Really ?
What is the stellar type of the main star , and the size of the " Goldilocks zone " ?
Since neither of there are defined in the series , your speculation above has no basis .
There 's no reason to think the system they 're in does n't have a Goldilocks zone large enough for hundreds of planets , when it 's explicitly stated that it does and there 's no scientific reason to reject that idea .
Not to mention many if not most of these worlds could easily be moons of gas giants .
Each " super-Jupiter " could have dozens of habitable worlds orbiting it , not to mention a few worlds at each trojan point.I could have come up with a better " reason for the reavers " in my sleep .
The original one from the series ( mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc ) was good enough .
Hell , the movie contradicted the series directly .
If the Pax caused reaverdom , the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudl n't have worked unless the reavers carry a supply of the otherwise secret Pax around and deliberately pre-expose potential recruits to it before deciding who to kill , rape , and eat ( in that order , if you 're really lucky ) .It does n't need to be deliberate .
I can come up with three different reasons in my sleep why they 'd be unintentionally exposing anyone they bring aboard one of their ships .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That and un-kill Wash and Sheppard Book.Yes, please.Oh, and get rid of the whole Miranda bullshit.
The people who ply the lanes of space would neither "overlook" nor "forget" an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years.
Nor could such a thing be hidden as, outer-most or not, it would show up on everybody's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots.
Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.Knowing there's a body there and knowing there's a colony there are two different things.
It can easily be "hidden" simply by being lost in the crowd.Oh yea, and drop that whole "all the planets orbiting one sun" nonsense since it isn't workable.
Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball \_or\_ the "inner planets" would be molten slag.Really?
What is the stellar type of the main star, and the size of the "Goldilocks zone"?
Since neither of there are defined in the series, your speculation above has no basis.
There's no reason to think the system they're in doesn't have a Goldilocks zone large enough for hundreds of planets, when it's explicitly stated that it does and there's no scientific reason to reject that idea.
Not to mention many if not most of these worlds could easily be moons of gas giants.
Each "super-Jupiter" could have dozens of habitable worlds orbiting it, not to mention a few worlds at each trojan point.I could have come up with a better "reason for the reavers" in my sleep.
The original one from the series (mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc) was good enough.
Hell, the movie contradicted the series directly.
If the Pax caused reaverdom, the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudln't have worked unless the reavers carry a supply of the otherwise secret Pax around and deliberately pre-expose potential recruits to it before deciding who to kill, rape, and eat (in that order, if you're really lucky).It doesn't need to be deliberate.
I can come up with three different reasons in my sleep why they'd be unintentionally exposing anyone they bring aboard one of their ships.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728140</id>
	<title>Re:How about Rebooting Reboot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263202380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They will have a hell of a time replacing the late Tony Jay as the voice of Megabyte.   Tony Jay was simply awesome, and Megabyte fit him perfectly.  Anyone else would just be...playing at the role (can you imagine someone else doing Optimus Prime's voice?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They will have a hell of a time replacing the late Tony Jay as the voice of Megabyte .
Tony Jay was simply awesome , and Megabyte fit him perfectly .
Anyone else would just be...playing at the role ( can you imagine someone else doing Optimus Prime 's voice ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will have a hell of a time replacing the late Tony Jay as the voice of Megabyte.
Tony Jay was simply awesome, and Megabyte fit him perfectly.
Anyone else would just be...playing at the role (can you imagine someone else doing Optimus Prime's voice?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729354</id>
	<title>What about Alf?</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1263206700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just think--the graphics in the dream scenes where Alf fillets the family cat would be killer!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think--the graphics in the dream scenes where Alf fillets the family cat would be killer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think--the graphics in the dream scenes where Alf fillets the family cat would be killer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728356</id>
	<title>Re:Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>Ragzouken</author>
	<datestamp>1263203220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my god, YES to C.O.P.S.</p><p>Do it now; crime's a wastin'!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my god , YES to C.O.P.S.Do it now ; crime 's a wastin ' !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my god, YES to C.O.P.S.Do it now; crime's a wastin'!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727940</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>DrMaurer</author>
	<datestamp>1263201720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would like to see something of Alistair Reynolds' made into a movie. With the Avatar success, I think someone could make one of those worlds pretty well...</p><p>But, you know, something totally original is good too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would like to see something of Alistair Reynolds ' made into a movie .
With the Avatar success , I think someone could make one of those worlds pretty well...But , you know , something totally original is good too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would like to see something of Alistair Reynolds' made into a movie.
With the Avatar success, I think someone could make one of those worlds pretty well...But, you know, something totally original is good too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729418</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are way too many un-tapped Sci-Fi stories to reboot old material. I would love to see a series based on Arthur C. Clarke's Rama novels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are way too many un-tapped Sci-Fi stories to reboot old material .
I would love to see a series based on Arthur C. Clarke 's Rama novels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are way too many un-tapped Sci-Fi stories to reboot old material.
I would love to see a series based on Arthur C. Clarke's Rama novels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728032</id>
	<title>Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263202080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought Farscape, while not a remake, was more than a little bit homage to Buck Rogers. It has the same setup, basically, except replace "frozen in time" with "shot through a wormhole."</p><p>I'd like to see more Farscape, but considering it just ended I don't think that's likely for another 20 years until it gets rebooted probably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought Farscape , while not a remake , was more than a little bit homage to Buck Rogers .
It has the same setup , basically , except replace " frozen in time " with " shot through a wormhole .
" I 'd like to see more Farscape , but considering it just ended I do n't think that 's likely for another 20 years until it gets rebooted probably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought Farscape, while not a remake, was more than a little bit homage to Buck Rogers.
It has the same setup, basically, except replace "frozen in time" with "shot through a wormhole.
"I'd like to see more Farscape, but considering it just ended I don't think that's likely for another 20 years until it gets rebooted probably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733214</id>
	<title>Re:they should turn 'land of the lost' into a movi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find when a movie like "Land of the Lost" is sooooo overhyped that it falls flat to it's expectations...</p><p>I enjoy it more....    Because I have NO expectations.</p><p>We watched it on the home theatre, and laughed quite a bit.  Dorky, Campy, and oh..  ridiculousness of Will Farrell..</p><p>Maybe I'm the only one that thought it was ok.   But I do believe that Hollywood overhypes itself sooo much to make opening weekend ratings, that people feel 'oversold' and then word of mouth is vicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find when a movie like " Land of the Lost " is sooooo overhyped that it falls flat to it 's expectations...I enjoy it more.... Because I have NO expectations.We watched it on the home theatre , and laughed quite a bit .
Dorky , Campy , and oh.. ridiculousness of Will Farrell..Maybe I 'm the only one that thought it was ok. But I do believe that Hollywood overhypes itself sooo much to make opening weekend ratings , that people feel 'oversold ' and then word of mouth is vicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find when a movie like "Land of the Lost" is sooooo overhyped that it falls flat to it's expectations...I enjoy it more....    Because I have NO expectations.We watched it on the home theatre, and laughed quite a bit.
Dorky, Campy, and oh..  ridiculousness of Will Farrell..Maybe I'm the only one that thought it was ok.   But I do believe that Hollywood overhypes itself sooo much to make opening weekend ratings, that people feel 'oversold' and then word of mouth is vicious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729246</id>
	<title>Micheal McCollum's Antares series</title>
	<author>stephencrane</author>
	<datestamp>1263206340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought the Antares trilogy would make a great miniseries or tv series.

<a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Antares" title="tvtropes.org" rel="nofollow">http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Antares</a> [tvtropes.org]


Alas, Babylon and Farnham's Freehold would be great too.


Last but not least...
ARMOR.  ARMOR. *sniff*  Armor.  *sob*

Damn you, NPH.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought the Antares trilogy would make a great miniseries or tv series .
http : //tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Antares [ tvtropes.org ] Alas , Babylon and Farnham 's Freehold would be great too .
Last but not least.. . ARMOR. ARMOR .
* sniff * Armor .
* sob * Damn you , NPH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought the Antares trilogy would make a great miniseries or tv series.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Antares [tvtropes.org]


Alas, Babylon and Farnham's Freehold would be great too.
Last but not least...
ARMOR.  ARMOR.
*sniff*  Armor.
*sob*

Damn you, NPH.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735548</id>
	<title>The History of Civilisation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>aka the "Lensmen" series. It deserves better than the two failed anime attempts to date.</p><p>Unfortunately, the way TV is heading, we'll end up with a re-tread of Holmes and Yo-Yo: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes\_&amp;\_Yo-Yo" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes\_&amp;\_Yo-Yo</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>aka the " Lensmen " series .
It deserves better than the two failed anime attempts to date.Unfortunately , the way TV is heading , we 'll end up with a re-tread of Holmes and Yo-Yo : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes \ _&amp; \ _Yo-Yo [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aka the "Lensmen" series.
It deserves better than the two failed anime attempts to date.Unfortunately, the way TV is heading, we'll end up with a re-tread of Holmes and Yo-Yo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes\_&amp;\_Yo-Yo [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726896</id>
	<title>Nice try Charles</title>
	<author>Botched</author>
	<datestamp>1263241740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We all know you post here!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know you post here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know you post here!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727864</id>
	<title>Why the false dichotomy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rebooting old franchises is in no way mutually exclusive with creating new ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rebooting old franchises is in no way mutually exclusive with creating new ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rebooting old franchises is in no way mutually exclusive with creating new ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726864</id>
	<title>How about Rebooting Reboot?</title>
	<author>hguorbray</author>
	<datestamp>1263241620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A canadian animation that took place initially inside of a game console, although the second series also included the internet. A bit like Tron, but with a richer world inside the computer hardware.<br><br>Bob the guardian, his girlfriend Dot and the great villains Megabyte and Hexadecimal.<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBoot<br><br>Actually it looks like they are reviving it already, so -asked and answered as they say.<br><br>-I'm just sayin'</htmltext>
<tokenext>A canadian animation that took place initially inside of a game console , although the second series also included the internet .
A bit like Tron , but with a richer world inside the computer hardware.Bob the guardian , his girlfriend Dot and the great villains Megabyte and Hexadecimal.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBootActually it looks like they are reviving it already , so -asked and answered as they say.-I 'm just sayin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A canadian animation that took place initially inside of a game console, although the second series also included the internet.
A bit like Tron, but with a richer world inside the computer hardware.Bob the guardian, his girlfriend Dot and the great villains Megabyte and Hexadecimal.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBootActually it looks like they are reviving it already, so -asked and answered as they say.-I'm just sayin'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732678</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263225660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I read recently that BBC is actually considering a reboot of that one, but at the moment I can't find a reference[...]</i></p><p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7364663.stm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read recently that BBC is actually considering a reboot of that one , but at the moment I ca n't find a reference [ ... ] http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7364663.stm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read recently that BBC is actually considering a reboot of that one, but at the moment I can't find a reference[...]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7364663.stm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730020</id>
	<title>The Starlost</title>
	<author>Urban Garlic</author>
	<datestamp>1263209340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlost" title="wikipedia.org">Link</a> [wikipedia.org] for those who haven't heard of it.</p><p>Maybe Harlan Ellison could come back and salvage his original vision.  Maybe this time the Magicam will work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Link [ wikipedia.org ] for those who have n't heard of it.Maybe Harlan Ellison could come back and salvage his original vision .
Maybe this time the Magicam will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link [wikipedia.org] for those who haven't heard of it.Maybe Harlan Ellison could come back and salvage his original vision.
Maybe this time the Magicam will work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734570</id>
	<title>Space Above and Beyond</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263290160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want Space: Above and Beyond.. was a great show, but the network execs killed it before the end of the first season..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want Space : Above and Beyond.. was a great show , but the network execs killed it before the end of the first season. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want Space: Above and Beyond.. was a great show, but the network execs killed it before the end of the first season..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733492</id>
	<title>Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>sparky1974</author>
	<datestamp>1263232620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who knows, and maybe white leather jumpsuits will come back in style. We can all dream can't we?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who knows , and maybe white leather jumpsuits will come back in style .
We can all dream ca n't we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who knows, and maybe white leather jumpsuits will come back in style.
We can all dream can't we?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728206</id>
	<title>Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1263202680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Princess Ardala, Col. Wilma Deering,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... What more could any nerd boy want?"</p><p>I'm not a nerd boy anymore; I'm a nerd MAN, and the "more" I want is Ardala and Deering naked in a lesbian scene.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Princess Ardala , Col. Wilma Deering , ... What more could any nerd boy want ?
" I 'm not a nerd boy anymore ; I 'm a nerd MAN , and the " more " I want is Ardala and Deering naked in a lesbian scene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Princess Ardala, Col. Wilma Deering, ... What more could any nerd boy want?
"I'm not a nerd boy anymore; I'm a nerd MAN, and the "more" I want is Ardala and Deering naked in a lesbian scene.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734326</id>
	<title>Odyssey 5</title>
	<author>tengu1sd</author>
	<datestamp>1263286920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Generally well written, a background story arc and long shot odds.  Peter Weller was way cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally well written , a background story arc and long shot odds .
Peter Weller was way cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally well written, a background story arc and long shot odds.
Peter Weller was way cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734352</id>
	<title>Sure.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1263287280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your tastes are law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your tastes are law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your tastes are law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726640</id>
	<title>Maybe they should Re-Reboot...</title>
	<author>PGOER</author>
	<datestamp>1263241020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Startrek. It doesn't seem like this new series is going to go anywhere, or is it just me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Startrek .
It does n't seem like this new series is going to go anywhere , or is it just me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Startrek.
It doesn't seem like this new series is going to go anywhere, or is it just me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726782</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1263241380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I assumed it meant "restart/continue" Firefly, not redo it from scratch.

It would have been nice if the "government experiments on its own people" story crammed into "Serenity" had been a season's story arc, like it was probably designed to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assumed it meant " restart/continue " Firefly , not redo it from scratch .
It would have been nice if the " government experiments on its own people " story crammed into " Serenity " had been a season 's story arc , like it was probably designed to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assumed it meant "restart/continue" Firefly, not redo it from scratch.
It would have been nice if the "government experiments on its own people" story crammed into "Serenity" had been a season's story arc, like it was probably designed to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728684</id>
	<title>Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1263204300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buck Rogers, itself a renake, is pretty typical.  The writers appeared to have trouble coming up with enough new material, so it sank the first season(Las Vegas in Spaaaace!).  It was completely remade for season two.  I am not sure what they would do with it now, though I am surprised no one has taken it to cable.
<p>
We have other lesser known shows that are might work equally fine, like VR.5.  As silly as it was, it was a pretty good show, at least for the mid 90's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buck Rogers , itself a renake , is pretty typical .
The writers appeared to have trouble coming up with enough new material , so it sank the first season ( Las Vegas in Spaaaace ! ) .
It was completely remade for season two .
I am not sure what they would do with it now , though I am surprised no one has taken it to cable .
We have other lesser known shows that are might work equally fine , like VR.5 .
As silly as it was , it was a pretty good show , at least for the mid 90 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buck Rogers, itself a renake, is pretty typical.
The writers appeared to have trouble coming up with enough new material, so it sank the first season(Las Vegas in Spaaaace!).
It was completely remade for season two.
I am not sure what they would do with it now, though I am surprised no one has taken it to cable.
We have other lesser known shows that are might work equally fine, like VR.5.
As silly as it was, it was a pretty good show, at least for the mid 90's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727382</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1263243180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Avon activates the star drive incinerating Dr. Langstrom in the Process)</p><p>Dayna: What about Dr. Langstrom?<br>Avon: Who?</p><p>Orac: We need to lose 63 Kilos in order to achieve orbit.<br>Avon: Who do we have left to jettison that weighs 63 Kilos?<br>Orac: Vila weights 70 Kilos.....<br>Avon:   Vila, where are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Avon activates the star drive incinerating Dr. Langstrom in the Process ) Dayna : What about Dr. Langstrom ? Avon : Who ? Orac : We need to lose 63 Kilos in order to achieve orbit.Avon : Who do we have left to jettison that weighs 63 Kilos ? Orac : Vila weights 70 Kilos.....Avon : Vila , where are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Avon activates the star drive incinerating Dr. Langstrom in the Process)Dayna: What about Dr. Langstrom?Avon: Who?Orac: We need to lose 63 Kilos in order to achieve orbit.Avon: Who do we have left to jettison that weighs 63 Kilos?Orac: Vila weights 70 Kilos.....Avon:   Vila, where are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726750</id>
	<title>they should turn 'land of the lost' into a movie</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263241320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe anchor it with a hip contemporary comedian?</p><p>i'm sure it would make lots of money</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe anchor it with a hip contemporary comedian ? i 'm sure it would make lots of money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe anchor it with a hip contemporary comedian?i'm sure it would make lots of money</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728306</id>
	<title>must we?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1263203040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there's been some good rebooots...</p><p>And I understand the appeal - if it was popular the first time around, you can assume it'll be popular the second time around...</p><p>And from the fan's perspective, it's always good to see more of your favorite shows...</p><p>But do we have to keep rebooting everything?  How about some new content?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there 's been some good rebooots...And I understand the appeal - if it was popular the first time around , you can assume it 'll be popular the second time around...And from the fan 's perspective , it 's always good to see more of your favorite shows...But do we have to keep rebooting everything ?
How about some new content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there's been some good rebooots...And I understand the appeal - if it was popular the first time around, you can assume it'll be popular the second time around...And from the fan's perspective, it's always good to see more of your favorite shows...But do we have to keep rebooting everything?
How about some new content?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728330</id>
	<title>Plenty of ideas in Anime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been watching a number of old cheesy anime series lately - some SiFi, some not. It seems like there are plenty of ideas there that haven't been used much if at all in American TV/Movies.</p><p>Then again, probably the American public can't rap their heads around some of the concepts. How about a live action movie based off the classic Ranma 1/2? That sound you hear is the sound of a million sexually insecure American's heads exploding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been watching a number of old cheesy anime series lately - some SiFi , some not .
It seems like there are plenty of ideas there that have n't been used much if at all in American TV/Movies.Then again , probably the American public ca n't rap their heads around some of the concepts .
How about a live action movie based off the classic Ranma 1/2 ?
That sound you hear is the sound of a million sexually insecure American 's heads exploding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been watching a number of old cheesy anime series lately - some SiFi, some not.
It seems like there are plenty of ideas there that haven't been used much if at all in American TV/Movies.Then again, probably the American public can't rap their heads around some of the concepts.
How about a live action movie based off the classic Ranma 1/2?
That sound you hear is the sound of a million sexually insecure American's heads exploding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728262</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1263202860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think part of the appeal of remakes is that SOOO often the original ideas are complete and utter crap.  If they started with Babylon 5 as a base for example, then I at least know they're starting with something good and have to try to screw it up (possible though - Star Wars TPM proves that).  If it's something completely new though, it has about a 95\% chance of sucking.</p><p>In general I think people are just tired of playing the odds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think part of the appeal of remakes is that SOOO often the original ideas are complete and utter crap .
If they started with Babylon 5 as a base for example , then I at least know they 're starting with something good and have to try to screw it up ( possible though - Star Wars TPM proves that ) .
If it 's something completely new though , it has about a 95 \ % chance of sucking.In general I think people are just tired of playing the odds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think part of the appeal of remakes is that SOOO often the original ideas are complete and utter crap.
If they started with Babylon 5 as a base for example, then I at least know they're starting with something good and have to try to screw it up (possible though - Star Wars TPM proves that).
If it's something completely new though, it has about a 95\% chance of sucking.In general I think people are just tired of playing the odds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729740</id>
	<title>Re:Jetsons?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1263208200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Everybody Loves RAY-M0nd</i>, with a robotic father who's creators live across the street. Sounds like a winner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody Loves RAY-M0nd , with a robotic father who 's creators live across the street .
Sounds like a winner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody Loves RAY-M0nd, with a robotic father who's creators live across the street.
Sounds like a winner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744246</id>
	<title>Re:Star Wars Christmas Special</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1263298140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh God in Heaven!  What Hell have you unleashed upon the world!?!!?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh God in Heaven !
What Hell have you unleashed upon the world ! ? ! ! ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh God in Heaven!
What Hell have you unleashed upon the world!?!!?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729444</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1263207060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got it! This time around, the trolls <i>look just like us!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got it !
This time around , the trolls look just like us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got it!
This time around, the trolls look just like us!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888</id>
	<title>There is only one worthy</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1263241680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Far Out Space Nuts</p><p>You know you want it.</p><p>But, seriously, I agree with others who say "Do something new".</p><p>How about some retro space opera? Lensman or Perry Rhodan? Maybe a Stainless Steel Rat series?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry\_Rhodan" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry\_Rhodan</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Far Out Space NutsYou know you want it.But , seriously , I agree with others who say " Do something new " .How about some retro space opera ?
Lensman or Perry Rhodan ?
Maybe a Stainless Steel Rat series ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry \ _Rhodan [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far Out Space NutsYou know you want it.But, seriously, I agree with others who say "Do something new".How about some retro space opera?
Lensman or Perry Rhodan?
Maybe a Stainless Steel Rat series?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry\_Rhodan [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730544</id>
	<title>MST3K</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1263211680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, the MST3K folks are off doing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Film\_Crew" title="wikipedia.org">new</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifftrax" title="wikipedia.org">things</a> [wikipedia.org], and that's good. All the more reason for a reboot - bring in new talent, a new idea for a series story arc... There are plenty of lousy movies out there to deconstruct. All it takes is a crew of interns to chase down the rights to them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , the MST3K folks are off doing new [ wikipedia.org ] things [ wikipedia.org ] , and that 's good .
All the more reason for a reboot - bring in new talent , a new idea for a series story arc... There are plenty of lousy movies out there to deconstruct .
All it takes is a crew of interns to chase down the rights to them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, the MST3K folks are off doing new [wikipedia.org] things [wikipedia.org], and that's good.
All the more reason for a reboot - bring in new talent, a new idea for a series story arc... There are plenty of lousy movies out there to deconstruct.
All it takes is a crew of interns to chase down the rights to them...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730824</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1263213180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well this got a reboot in the 80s with the movie, maybe a re-reboot is in order?</p></div><p>To me, the main problem with any new attempts at making "Twilight Zone" material is that people just seem to miss the point.  I think people fixate on the trick ending, which was a big part of the show, but not the only thing...  And any time I hear somebody trying to imitate Rod Serling I just want to smack 'em.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well this got a reboot in the 80s with the movie , maybe a re-reboot is in order ? To me , the main problem with any new attempts at making " Twilight Zone " material is that people just seem to miss the point .
I think people fixate on the trick ending , which was a big part of the show , but not the only thing... And any time I hear somebody trying to imitate Rod Serling I just want to smack 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well this got a reboot in the 80s with the movie, maybe a re-reboot is in order?To me, the main problem with any new attempts at making "Twilight Zone" material is that people just seem to miss the point.
I think people fixate on the trick ending, which was a big part of the show, but not the only thing...  And any time I hear somebody trying to imitate Rod Serling I just want to smack 'em.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726980</id>
	<title>WarGames</title>
	<author>nkcaump</author>
	<datestamp>1263242040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you could probably refresh the tech in WarGames and make it infinitely better by updating the cast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you could probably refresh the tech in WarGames and make it infinitely better by updating the cast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you could probably refresh the tech in WarGames and make it infinitely better by updating the cast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632</id>
	<title>Misfits of Science</title>
	<author>dmomo</author>
	<datestamp>1263240960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wait.  That'd be Heros.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait .
That 'd be Heros .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait.
That'd be Heros.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728066</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1263202140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't put Summer Glau in the remake, I'm not watching....</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't put Summer Glau in the remake , I 'm not watching... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't put Summer Glau in the remake, I'm not watching....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728452</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1263203580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Indeed. I'd love to see some of the Asimov short stories and novels done well. The film versions of <i>Nightfall</i> and <i>I, Robot</i> were abysmal, they took great stories and ruined them.</p></div><p>Well, in the case of I, Robot, they didn't take a great story to begin with.  They took a completely unrelated story and slapped the "I, Robot" label on it.</p><p>I don't think Foundation could be made into a movie or TV series.  It would either be nothing like the original, or it would look like it belonged on History Channel, but with less action and excitement than your typical History Channel program.  Maybe more PBS...</p><p>Elijah Baley's trilogy of stories could make for some good movies, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
I 'd love to see some of the Asimov short stories and novels done well .
The film versions of Nightfall and I , Robot were abysmal , they took great stories and ruined them.Well , in the case of I , Robot , they did n't take a great story to begin with .
They took a completely unrelated story and slapped the " I , Robot " label on it.I do n't think Foundation could be made into a movie or TV series .
It would either be nothing like the original , or it would look like it belonged on History Channel , but with less action and excitement than your typical History Channel program .
Maybe more PBS...Elijah Baley 's trilogy of stories could make for some good movies , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
I'd love to see some of the Asimov short stories and novels done well.
The film versions of Nightfall and I, Robot were abysmal, they took great stories and ruined them.Well, in the case of I, Robot, they didn't take a great story to begin with.
They took a completely unrelated story and slapped the "I, Robot" label on it.I don't think Foundation could be made into a movie or TV series.
It would either be nothing like the original, or it would look like it belonged on History Channel, but with less action and excitement than your typical History Channel program.
Maybe more PBS...Elijah Baley's trilogy of stories could make for some good movies, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732686</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263225720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea but its less like fiction now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea but its less like fiction now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea but its less like fiction now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729666</id>
	<title>Re:QUARK</title>
	<author>uncle slacky</author>
	<datestamp>1263207960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn! Beat me to it! It's out on DVD now, at least.</p><p>I'm sure that's where 3rd Rock from the Sun got the idea for "The Big Giant Head".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn !
Beat me to it !
It 's out on DVD now , at least.I 'm sure that 's where 3rd Rock from the Sun got the idea for " The Big Giant Head " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn!
Beat me to it!
It's out on DVD now, at least.I'm sure that's where 3rd Rock from the Sun got the idea for "The Big Giant Head".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727738</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>Brackney</author>
	<datestamp>1263201060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Armor</p></div><p>Thank you!  We can get Steakley's Vampire$, but not Armor?  The mind boggles...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ArmorThank you !
We can get Steakley 's Vampire $ , but not Armor ?
The mind boggles.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ArmorThank you!
We can get Steakley's Vampire$, but not Armor?
The mind boggles...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726738</id>
	<title>QUARK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This show needs to be brought up to date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This show needs to be brought up to date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This show needs to be brought up to date.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727384</id>
	<title>Starship Troopers</title>
	<author>cthulu\_mt</author>
	<datestamp>1263243180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do it right this time; the world is ready for power armor.
<br> <br>
Do it for the Lieutenant!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it right this time ; the world is ready for power armor .
Do it for the Lieutenant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it right this time; the world is ready for power armor.
Do it for the Lieutenant!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728856</id>
	<title>FUCK ALL REMAKES</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1263204960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like it says on the tin. FUCK ALL REMAKES.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like it says on the tin .
FUCK ALL REMAKES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like it says on the tin.
FUCK ALL REMAKES.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727136</id>
	<title>He-Man...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the Masters of the Universe?  Bleah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the Masters of the Universe ?
Bleah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the Masters of the Universe?
Bleah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727068</id>
	<title>Jetsons?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was trying to be funny when I wrote this - as I didn't notice it on the list. However, In typing it out, however, my ADHD mind thought of a million ideas for a realistic comedy based on a robotic future with a working Joe dealing with life as his wife, kids and robotic maid (can we use the word, 'android,' without pissing off PK Dick?) work through various scenerios.<br><br>Or maybe we can find a new movie in which Sigourney Weaver can wake up from hyper sleep and then take on some alien presence...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...what? I saw that this weekend?<br><br>Nevermind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was trying to be funny when I wrote this - as I did n't notice it on the list .
However , In typing it out , however , my ADHD mind thought of a million ideas for a realistic comedy based on a robotic future with a working Joe dealing with life as his wife , kids and robotic maid ( can we use the word , 'android, ' without pissing off PK Dick ?
) work through various scenerios.Or maybe we can find a new movie in which Sigourney Weaver can wake up from hyper sleep and then take on some alien presence... ...what ? I saw that this weekend ? Nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was trying to be funny when I wrote this - as I didn't notice it on the list.
However, In typing it out, however, my ADHD mind thought of a million ideas for a realistic comedy based on a robotic future with a working Joe dealing with life as his wife, kids and robotic maid (can we use the word, 'android,' without pissing off PK Dick?
) work through various scenerios.Or maybe we can find a new movie in which Sigourney Weaver can wake up from hyper sleep and then take on some alien presence... ...what? I saw that this weekend?Nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730710</id>
	<title>Batman?</title>
	<author>Peganthyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1263212640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the first article:</p><blockquote><div><p>Batman<br>The Dark Knight has been cleverly, and even subversively, lightened up by the run of the enjoyable Batman: The Brave and the Bold. On screen, the cowled hero has mostly remained locked either in clumsy camp or gritty noir, but nothing beyond.</p><p>Both versions of the Caped Crusader rule, but Batman could benefit from an anime upgrade or perhaps a temporal distortion that pushes him into Buck Rogers&rsquo; timestream. The idea is not necessarily new: From the Bat-anime of Batman: Gotham Knight to the appearance of Bat-mechas in recent animated series, Bat-updates have been flirted with, brilliantly. Let&rsquo;s go all the way.</p></div></blockquote><p>I guess these guys were completely oblivious in 1999-2001, when WB was broadcasting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman\_Beyond" title="wikipedia.org">Batman Beyond</a> [wikipedia.org], set in 2039. Or was it not cool because it was made by an American crew or something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the first article : BatmanThe Dark Knight has been cleverly , and even subversively , lightened up by the run of the enjoyable Batman : The Brave and the Bold .
On screen , the cowled hero has mostly remained locked either in clumsy camp or gritty noir , but nothing beyond.Both versions of the Caped Crusader rule , but Batman could benefit from an anime upgrade or perhaps a temporal distortion that pushes him into Buck Rogers    timestream .
The idea is not necessarily new : From the Bat-anime of Batman : Gotham Knight to the appearance of Bat-mechas in recent animated series , Bat-updates have been flirted with , brilliantly .
Let    s go all the way.I guess these guys were completely oblivious in 1999-2001 , when WB was broadcasting Batman Beyond [ wikipedia.org ] , set in 2039 .
Or was it not cool because it was made by an American crew or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the first article:BatmanThe Dark Knight has been cleverly, and even subversively, lightened up by the run of the enjoyable Batman: The Brave and the Bold.
On screen, the cowled hero has mostly remained locked either in clumsy camp or gritty noir, but nothing beyond.Both versions of the Caped Crusader rule, but Batman could benefit from an anime upgrade or perhaps a temporal distortion that pushes him into Buck Rogers’ timestream.
The idea is not necessarily new: From the Bat-anime of Batman: Gotham Knight to the appearance of Bat-mechas in recent animated series, Bat-updates have been flirted with, brilliantly.
Let’s go all the way.I guess these guys were completely oblivious in 1999-2001, when WB was broadcasting Batman Beyond [wikipedia.org], set in 2039.
Or was it not cool because it was made by an American crew or something?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733010</id>
	<title>Mod me redundant, wait and see</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1263228420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't take the sky from me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't take the sky from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't take the sky from me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30737820</id>
	<title>Captain Power!</title>
	<author>SuiteSisterMary</author>
	<datestamp>1263314700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reboot Captain Power, get JMS back on, keep it as awesome as the original, and this time, keep on with the second season (and beyond.)

That show was *not* a kids show.  The episode with the plague kid, the episode with Pilot needing to infiltrate a Dread base, the finale....that was some damn fine television.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reboot Captain Power , get JMS back on , keep it as awesome as the original , and this time , keep on with the second season ( and beyond .
) That show was * not * a kids show .
The episode with the plague kid , the episode with Pilot needing to infiltrate a Dread base , the finale....that was some damn fine television .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reboot Captain Power, get JMS back on, keep it as awesome as the original, and this time, keep on with the second season (and beyond.
)

That show was *not* a kids show.
The episode with the plague kid, the episode with Pilot needing to infiltrate a Dread base, the finale....that was some damn fine television.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727472</id>
	<title>Re-reboot Stargate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263243420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like Stargate: Universe for what it is, but honestly SG-1 and Atlantis were better just because they were fun. They didn't take themselves too seriously, and it worked. It was good sci-fi that occasionally acknowledged how cheesy sci-fi can be. I want a series where every once in awhile the leader character will stop and ask the brain questions like, "If that thing lets you walk through walls, why don't you fall through the floor when you turn it on?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like Stargate : Universe for what it is , but honestly SG-1 and Atlantis were better just because they were fun .
They did n't take themselves too seriously , and it worked .
It was good sci-fi that occasionally acknowledged how cheesy sci-fi can be .
I want a series where every once in awhile the leader character will stop and ask the brain questions like , " If that thing lets you walk through walls , why do n't you fall through the floor when you turn it on ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like Stargate: Universe for what it is, but honestly SG-1 and Atlantis were better just because they were fun.
They didn't take themselves too seriously, and it worked.
It was good sci-fi that occasionally acknowledged how cheesy sci-fi can be.
I want a series where every once in awhile the leader character will stop and ask the brain questions like, "If that thing lets you walk through walls, why don't you fall through the floor when you turn it on?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728418</id>
	<title>Roger Zelazny's 9 Princes in Amber</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or Lord of Light.</p><p>Lord of Light was a Hugo &amp; Nebula awards winner, but I did like them both.</p><p>He really was a good author that never had a screenplay get anywhere near the original.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or Lord of Light.Lord of Light was a Hugo &amp; Nebula awards winner , but I did like them both.He really was a good author that never had a screenplay get anywhere near the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or Lord of Light.Lord of Light was a Hugo &amp; Nebula awards winner, but I did like them both.He really was a good author that never had a screenplay get anywhere near the original.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727564</id>
	<title>Legend of Galactic Heroes</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1263200460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it comes down to it I guess its hardly SciFi but I just finished the first arc and I love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes down to it I guess its hardly SciFi but I just finished the first arc and I love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes down to it I guess its hardly SciFi but I just finished the first arc and I love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731180</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I notice you didn't mention it needed to be "darker" and "edgier".  Is there some reason for that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice you did n't mention it needed to be " darker " and " edgier " .
Is there some reason for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice you didn't mention it needed to be "darker" and "edgier".
Is there some reason for that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728364</id>
	<title>Geeky/nerdy can work if done right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This show is a sit com in which Schrodenger's cat was explained.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Big\_Bang\_Theory#U.S.\_standard\_ratings" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Big\_Bang\_Theory#U.S.\_standard\_ratings</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The reason most sci-fi tanks is that it's so poorly done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This show is a sit com in which Schrodenger 's cat was explained.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Big \ _Bang \ _Theory # U.S. \ _standard \ _ratings [ wikipedia.org ] The reason most sci-fi tanks is that it 's so poorly done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This show is a sit com in which Schrodenger's cat was explained.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Big\_Bang\_Theory#U.S.\_standard\_ratings [wikipedia.org]The reason most sci-fi tanks is that it's so poorly done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729970</id>
	<title>Re:Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though I can't find any reference to the incident, I noticed the series had been pulled off of Saturday mornings immediately after an episode that referenced "gimme the BFG" when bringing out a guitar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though I ca n't find any reference to the incident , I noticed the series had been pulled off of Saturday mornings immediately after an episode that referenced " gim me the BFG " when bringing out a guitar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though I can't find any reference to the incident, I noticed the series had been pulled off of Saturday mornings immediately after an episode that referenced "gimme the BFG" when bringing out a guitar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728926</id>
	<title>Re:Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>OK PC</author>
	<datestamp>1263205200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reboot IS getting a reboot:<br><a href="http://reboot.com/" title="reboot.com" rel="nofollow">http://reboot.com/</a> [reboot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reboot IS getting a reboot : http : //reboot.com/ [ reboot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reboot IS getting a reboot:http://reboot.com/ [reboot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731396</id>
	<title>Starhunter</title>
	<author>TClevenger</author>
	<datestamp>1263216540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about Starhunter 2300?  It ended in a cliffhanger, for crying out loud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Starhunter 2300 ?
It ended in a cliffhanger , for crying out loud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Starhunter 2300?
It ended in a cliffhanger, for crying out loud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727376</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263243120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. I'd love to see some of the Asimov short stories and novels done well. The film versions of <i>Nightfall</i> and <i>I, Robot</i> were abysmal, they took great stories and ruined them.</p><p>You could do a Robots+Foundation series that would last literally years; start with the <i>I, Robot</i> stories, continue with the Baily trilogy, then on to <i>The Stars Like Dust</i> and the others, followed by the <i>Foundation</i> books. Towards the end of his life Asimov had cemented all of these to where they all fit together; it would make a great series. The drawback would be that they would probably ruin them without the right producers and directors.</p><p>I waited thirty years for LOTR, I wonder if they'll do this one in my lifetime?</p><p>They couldn't do <i>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom</i> because Disney would never let them, and even if they would the drug references would make any studio shy away. It would, however, make a great movie.</p><p>I'd also like to see Pratchett's work on the big screen. If well done they would be hilarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
I 'd love to see some of the Asimov short stories and novels done well .
The film versions of Nightfall and I , Robot were abysmal , they took great stories and ruined them.You could do a Robots + Foundation series that would last literally years ; start with the I , Robot stories , continue with the Baily trilogy , then on to The Stars Like Dust and the others , followed by the Foundation books .
Towards the end of his life Asimov had cemented all of these to where they all fit together ; it would make a great series .
The drawback would be that they would probably ruin them without the right producers and directors.I waited thirty years for LOTR , I wonder if they 'll do this one in my lifetime ? They could n't do Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom because Disney would never let them , and even if they would the drug references would make any studio shy away .
It would , however , make a great movie.I 'd also like to see Pratchett 's work on the big screen .
If well done they would be hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
I'd love to see some of the Asimov short stories and novels done well.
The film versions of Nightfall and I, Robot were abysmal, they took great stories and ruined them.You could do a Robots+Foundation series that would last literally years; start with the I, Robot stories, continue with the Baily trilogy, then on to The Stars Like Dust and the others, followed by the Foundation books.
Towards the end of his life Asimov had cemented all of these to where they all fit together; it would make a great series.
The drawback would be that they would probably ruin them without the right producers and directors.I waited thirty years for LOTR, I wonder if they'll do this one in my lifetime?They couldn't do Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom because Disney would never let them, and even if they would the drug references would make any studio shy away.
It would, however, make a great movie.I'd also like to see Pratchett's work on the big screen.
If well done they would be hilarious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730578</id>
	<title>Re:UFO - No Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a movie in Development from the Robert Evans company.</p><p>http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118011722.html?categoryid=1236&amp;cs=1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a movie in Development from the Robert Evans company.http : //www.variety.com/article/VR1118011722.html ? categoryid = 1236&amp;cs = 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a movie in Development from the Robert Evans company.http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118011722.html?categoryid=1236&amp;cs=1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733680</id>
	<title>Man from Atlantis;  The Phoenix,etc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263234660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about some older shows like the Man from Atlantis, the Phoenix, Invaders, Kolchak (ok NM, X-files ruined writers for that for a couple more decades), UFO, Sapphire and Steel, Six Billion dollar Man(inflation!), the Tomorrow People (with effect that finally didn't blow goats), Space 1999, Blake's 7, Greatest American Hero, etc.</p><p>There are TONS of older properties that could be re-done in interesting ways or sequalized, etc,etc.  Too bad the crowd here seems to dine on crappy japanese anime ripoffs and awful battlestar reinventions (not that the original was anything to write home about)</p><p>Then again, why not dip into truly old Serials, and re-ivent some cool old properties in modern ways?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about some older shows like the Man from Atlantis , the Phoenix , Invaders , Kolchak ( ok NM , X-files ruined writers for that for a couple more decades ) , UFO , Sapphire and Steel , Six Billion dollar Man ( inflation !
) , the Tomorrow People ( with effect that finally did n't blow goats ) , Space 1999 , Blake 's 7 , Greatest American Hero , etc.There are TONS of older properties that could be re-done in interesting ways or sequalized , etc,etc .
Too bad the crowd here seems to dine on crappy japanese anime ripoffs and awful battlestar reinventions ( not that the original was anything to write home about ) Then again , why not dip into truly old Serials , and re-ivent some cool old properties in modern ways ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about some older shows like the Man from Atlantis, the Phoenix, Invaders, Kolchak (ok NM, X-files ruined writers for that for a couple more decades), UFO, Sapphire and Steel, Six Billion dollar Man(inflation!
), the Tomorrow People (with effect that finally didn't blow goats), Space 1999, Blake's 7, Greatest American Hero, etc.There are TONS of older properties that could be re-done in interesting ways or sequalized, etc,etc.
Too bad the crowd here seems to dine on crappy japanese anime ripoffs and awful battlestar reinventions (not that the original was anything to write home about)Then again, why not dip into truly old Serials, and re-ivent some cool old properties in modern ways?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727982</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1263201900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, some are superior remakes. The new Battlestar Galactica is far better than the old one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , some are superior remakes .
The new Battlestar Galactica is far better than the old one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, some are superior remakes.
The new Battlestar Galactica is far better than the old one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726936</id>
	<title>People of the Wind</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1263241920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about People of the Wind, by Poul Anderson? Make the CGI people REALLY stretch themselves instead of just painting humans blue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about People of the Wind , by Poul Anderson ?
Make the CGI people REALLY stretch themselves instead of just painting humans blue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about People of the Wind, by Poul Anderson?
Make the CGI people REALLY stretch themselves instead of just painting humans blue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730968</id>
	<title>Has to the potential to be Tragic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263213900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the good stuff has been done, or was recent to begin with (Sure wouldn't mind more Firefly though).  Moreover, sometimes the temptation to meddle can be unpleasant.  I can't imagine, for instance, a remake of E.T. somehow topping the original.  Sure, the special effects would be far superior but almost inevitably the story telling would be poorer and even if somehow managed to be an improvement, many would detest it anyways.</p><p>If the Star War's prequels proved anything, it's that childhood Nostalgia is an impossible standard to live up to.  Were the prequels great? No, but neither were the originals to be honest.  Most children probably prefer the prequels to the originals since the effects are better and they have no particular nostalgia for the originals . . .  Ever try to get a kid to sit down and watch a 30 year old movie? No matter how good you thought it was when you were a child, they just aren't interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the good stuff has been done , or was recent to begin with ( Sure would n't mind more Firefly though ) .
Moreover , sometimes the temptation to meddle can be unpleasant .
I ca n't imagine , for instance , a remake of E.T .
somehow topping the original .
Sure , the special effects would be far superior but almost inevitably the story telling would be poorer and even if somehow managed to be an improvement , many would detest it anyways.If the Star War 's prequels proved anything , it 's that childhood Nostalgia is an impossible standard to live up to .
Were the prequels great ?
No , but neither were the originals to be honest .
Most children probably prefer the prequels to the originals since the effects are better and they have no particular nostalgia for the originals .
. .
Ever try to get a kid to sit down and watch a 30 year old movie ?
No matter how good you thought it was when you were a child , they just are n't interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the good stuff has been done, or was recent to begin with (Sure wouldn't mind more Firefly though).
Moreover, sometimes the temptation to meddle can be unpleasant.
I can't imagine, for instance, a remake of E.T.
somehow topping the original.
Sure, the special effects would be far superior but almost inevitably the story telling would be poorer and even if somehow managed to be an improvement, many would detest it anyways.If the Star War's prequels proved anything, it's that childhood Nostalgia is an impossible standard to live up to.
Were the prequels great?
No, but neither were the originals to be honest.
Most children probably prefer the prequels to the originals since the effects are better and they have no particular nostalgia for the originals .
. .
Ever try to get a kid to sit down and watch a 30 year old movie?
No matter how good you thought it was when you were a child, they just aren't interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727904</id>
	<title>The Star Wars Prequels</title>
	<author>aibrahim</author>
	<datestamp>1263201600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They really could use serious re-imagining.</p><p>Done well it could even follow through the "original" 9 features Lucas envisioned.</p><p>New director and writers though.</p><p>Heck, I'll do it. I'd be happy to. I'd like to see 3D IMAX happen too. These movies can be absolutely huge again, and there is a good story thread throughout the saga- including the parts we haven't seen yet after the fall of the emperor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They really could use serious re-imagining.Done well it could even follow through the " original " 9 features Lucas envisioned.New director and writers though.Heck , I 'll do it .
I 'd be happy to .
I 'd like to see 3D IMAX happen too .
These movies can be absolutely huge again , and there is a good story thread throughout the saga- including the parts we have n't seen yet after the fall of the emperor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They really could use serious re-imagining.Done well it could even follow through the "original" 9 features Lucas envisioned.New director and writers though.Heck, I'll do it.
I'd be happy to.
I'd like to see 3D IMAX happen too.
These movies can be absolutely huge again, and there is a good story thread throughout the saga- including the parts we haven't seen yet after the fall of the emperor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727414</id>
	<title>Re:Silent Running</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1263243300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's one of my favorite SF movies.  I was very glad to find a copy of it on DVD a few years ago.</p><p>I sometimes wonder how much the Disney movie "Wall-E" and the Miyazaki movie "Castle in the Sky" draw from "Silent Running."  Robots taking care of plants?  An ecosystem drifting off into space?  "Silent Running" predates both movies by at least a decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one of my favorite SF movies .
I was very glad to find a copy of it on DVD a few years ago.I sometimes wonder how much the Disney movie " Wall-E " and the Miyazaki movie " Castle in the Sky " draw from " Silent Running .
" Robots taking care of plants ?
An ecosystem drifting off into space ?
" Silent Running " predates both movies by at least a decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one of my favorite SF movies.
I was very glad to find a copy of it on DVD a few years ago.I sometimes wonder how much the Disney movie "Wall-E" and the Miyazaki movie "Castle in the Sky" draw from "Silent Running.
"  Robots taking care of plants?
An ecosystem drifting off into space?
"Silent Running" predates both movies by at least a decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728634</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Monkey-Man2000</author>
	<datestamp>1263204180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen, but how about also "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". That would be rather easy to make into a movie since it's a nice, simple, story. While Snow Crash would be quite hard to depict convincingly with the rapid changes in POV during key parts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen , but how about also " The Moon is a Harsh Mistress " .
That would be rather easy to make into a movie since it 's a nice , simple , story .
While Snow Crash would be quite hard to depict convincingly with the rapid changes in POV during key parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen, but how about also "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
That would be rather easy to make into a movie since it's a nice, simple, story.
While Snow Crash would be quite hard to depict convincingly with the rapid changes in POV during key parts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728184</id>
	<title>Twin Peaks</title>
	<author>Fieryphoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1263202560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And rather than starting where it left off, it should start when Agent Cooper is the older man seen in his visions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And rather than starting where it left off , it should start when Agent Cooper is the older man seen in his visions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And rather than starting where it left off, it should start when Agent Cooper is the older man seen in his visions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729452</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1263207060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... no seriously. Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast.</p></div><p>Yeah, far too many old farts around here... XD</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... no seriously .
Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast.Yeah , far too many old farts around here... XD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... no seriously.
Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast.Yeah, far too many old farts around here... XD
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>LoyalOpposition</author>
	<datestamp>1263241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The part that needs to be eliminated in the reboot is the movie.  I want to see a series that includes Wash and Sheppard Book.</p><p>-Loyal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The part that needs to be eliminated in the reboot is the movie .
I want to see a series that includes Wash and Sheppard Book.-Loyal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The part that needs to be eliminated in the reboot is the movie.
I want to see a series that includes Wash and Sheppard Book.-Loyal</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732944</id>
	<title>Written works</title>
	<author>SlowMovingTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1263227760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For work not previously made into movies or TV how about:
</p><ol>
<li>C.J. Cherryh's <em>Foreigner</em> series  (forget the Navi, show me some Atevi)</li>
<li>Anne McAffrey's <em>Dragon Riders of Pern</em></li>
<li>David Drake's <em>Hammer's Slammers</em></li>
<li>Niven and Pournelle: <em>The Mote in God's Eye</em></li>
</ol><p>For reboots, how about a truer version of Jim Butcher's <em>The Dresden Files</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For work not previously made into movies or TV how about : C.J .
Cherryh 's Foreigner series ( forget the Navi , show me some Atevi ) Anne McAffrey 's Dragon Riders of Pern David Drake 's Hammer 's Slammers Niven and Pournelle : The Mote in God 's Eye For reboots , how about a truer version of Jim Butcher 's The Dresden Files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For work not previously made into movies or TV how about:

C.J.
Cherryh's Foreigner series  (forget the Navi, show me some Atevi)
Anne McAffrey's Dragon Riders of Pern
David Drake's Hammer's Slammers
Niven and Pournelle: The Mote in God's Eye
For reboots, how about a truer version of Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728398</id>
	<title>Re:The Tripods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heartily agree. I read the Tripod Trilogy (and the prequel) many times as a kid, and revisited it last summer. Was shorter than I remembered, but was just as gripping. A miniseries would definitely be in order, I don't think a trilogy of movies would work, nor would packing the entire thing into one 105 minute movie. Also, with expected viewership and ROI, they shouldn't really want to put a TON of money into it. I'm imagining something like the Earthsea miniseries from a few years back, but better casting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heartily agree .
I read the Tripod Trilogy ( and the prequel ) many times as a kid , and revisited it last summer .
Was shorter than I remembered , but was just as gripping .
A miniseries would definitely be in order , I do n't think a trilogy of movies would work , nor would packing the entire thing into one 105 minute movie .
Also , with expected viewership and ROI , they should n't really want to put a TON of money into it .
I 'm imagining something like the Earthsea miniseries from a few years back , but better casting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heartily agree.
I read the Tripod Trilogy (and the prequel) many times as a kid, and revisited it last summer.
Was shorter than I remembered, but was just as gripping.
A miniseries would definitely be in order, I don't think a trilogy of movies would work, nor would packing the entire thing into one 105 minute movie.
Also, with expected viewership and ROI, they shouldn't really want to put a TON of money into it.
I'm imagining something like the Earthsea miniseries from a few years back, but better casting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729958</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263209040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So close and you missed the million dollar idea! <b>We should make a movie of Slashdot!</b>. We'll have people in their mother's basements remotely piloting bombers against the Evil Triumvirate (RIAA, MPAA, BSA) with their pathetic attempts to find a girlfriend as a cheesy subplot! We could make millions*!</p><p>*Millions of Zimbabwean ISK, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So close and you missed the million dollar idea !
We should make a movie of Slashdot ! .
We 'll have people in their mother 's basements remotely piloting bombers against the Evil Triumvirate ( RIAA , MPAA , BSA ) with their pathetic attempts to find a girlfriend as a cheesy subplot !
We could make millions * !
* Millions of Zimbabwean ISK , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So close and you missed the million dollar idea!
We should make a movie of Slashdot!.
We'll have people in their mother's basements remotely piloting bombers against the Evil Triumvirate (RIAA, MPAA, BSA) with their pathetic attempts to find a girlfriend as a cheesy subplot!
We could make millions*!
*Millions of Zimbabwean ISK, that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731890</id>
	<title>Re:Dune....Definitely Dune</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263219600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, let Dune die already. With that mediocre miniseries and the craptacular new novels I think it's time to re-bury the corpse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , let Dune die already .
With that mediocre miniseries and the craptacular new novels I think it 's time to re-bury the corpse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, let Dune die already.
With that mediocre miniseries and the craptacular new novels I think it's time to re-bury the corpse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732620</id>
	<title>Space 1999</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263225000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about space 1999, but call it Space 2099. I love that show, even though the outfits are hilarious!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about space 1999 , but call it Space 2099 .
I love that show , even though the outfits are hilarious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about space 1999, but call it Space 2099.
I love that show, even though the outfits are hilarious!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726974</id>
	<title>Space 1999</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_1999" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_1999</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space \ _1999 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_1999 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728974</id>
	<title>Re:Star Wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263205380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life</p></div></blockquote><p> Starwars.  Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.</p></div><p>How about all of Star Wars? Seriously, between the EU and the games they're trying to turn Star Wars into something it wasn't originally intended for... adults. Games are trying to balance the universe for gameplay and you can't do it with the universe as it is (news flash, everyone wants to be a jedi and, new flash, jedi are overpowered and if they weren't they wouldn't be jedi). EU is trying to make Star Wars into some great adult epic fantasy when it was originally a kids movie.</p><p>Sorry folks, Star Wars is a fantasy kid flick. I'm not talking about the prequels, I'm talking about all of them. Not saying you can't enjoy them because they're kid flicks, just saying you've been trying to make it into something it's not for the past 30 years. Get over yourselves, the prequels were aimed at the same audience it was 30+ years ago. If we want Star Wars to be what we want it to be, let's reboot the damn thing and give it the adult feel.</p><p>A required PvPOnline comic that suits this: <a href="http://www.pvponline.com/2008/11/18/trek-on/" title="pvponline.com" rel="nofollow">Trek-On</a> [pvponline.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life Starwars .
Episodes 1 , 2 and 3 especially.How about all of Star Wars ?
Seriously , between the EU and the games they 're trying to turn Star Wars into something it was n't originally intended for... adults. Games are trying to balance the universe for gameplay and you ca n't do it with the universe as it is ( news flash , everyone wants to be a jedi and , new flash , jedi are overpowered and if they were n't they would n't be jedi ) .
EU is trying to make Star Wars into some great adult epic fantasy when it was originally a kids movie.Sorry folks , Star Wars is a fantasy kid flick .
I 'm not talking about the prequels , I 'm talking about all of them .
Not saying you ca n't enjoy them because they 're kid flicks , just saying you 've been trying to make it into something it 's not for the past 30 years .
Get over yourselves , the prequels were aimed at the same audience it was 30 + years ago .
If we want Star Wars to be what we want it to be , let 's reboot the damn thing and give it the adult feel.A required PvPOnline comic that suits this : Trek-On [ pvponline.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life Starwars.
Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.How about all of Star Wars?
Seriously, between the EU and the games they're trying to turn Star Wars into something it wasn't originally intended for... adults. Games are trying to balance the universe for gameplay and you can't do it with the universe as it is (news flash, everyone wants to be a jedi and, new flash, jedi are overpowered and if they weren't they wouldn't be jedi).
EU is trying to make Star Wars into some great adult epic fantasy when it was originally a kids movie.Sorry folks, Star Wars is a fantasy kid flick.
I'm not talking about the prequels, I'm talking about all of them.
Not saying you can't enjoy them because they're kid flicks, just saying you've been trying to make it into something it's not for the past 30 years.
Get over yourselves, the prequels were aimed at the same audience it was 30+ years ago.
If we want Star Wars to be what we want it to be, let's reboot the damn thing and give it the adult feel.A required PvPOnline comic that suits this: Trek-On [pvponline.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730762</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>natespizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263212940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hamilton, really?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hamilton , really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hamilton, really?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728488</id>
	<title>Re:Starship Troopers</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1263203700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I expect your names to SHINE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I expect your names to SHINE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I expect your names to SHINE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30740416</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek</title>
	<author>Logic Worshipper</author>
	<datestamp>1263323820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would kill for more Deep Space Nine.  Yeah, I know, the books.  The Dominion War in DS9 was the true hayday for Star Trek and science fiction. It was all downhill after that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would kill for more Deep Space Nine .
Yeah , I know , the books .
The Dominion War in DS9 was the true hayday for Star Trek and science fiction .
It was all downhill after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would kill for more Deep Space Nine.
Yeah, I know, the books.
The Dominion War in DS9 was the true hayday for Star Trek and science fiction.
It was all downhill after that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730116</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1263209700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, except for the horrible sets, the terrible writing, the stupid premise, and the awful plot lines, it was a good concept.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>So, we'll keep the bit about a bunch of people in space and change everything else.</p><p>Sounds like a reboot to me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , except for the horrible sets , the terrible writing , the stupid premise , and the awful plot lines , it was a good concept .
: - ) So , we 'll keep the bit about a bunch of people in space and change everything else.Sounds like a reboot to me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, except for the horrible sets, the terrible writing, the stupid premise, and the awful plot lines, it was a good concept.
:-)So, we'll keep the bit about a bunch of people in space and change everything else.Sounds like a reboot to me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728358</id>
	<title>Exosquad!</title>
	<author>Plastic Pencil</author>
	<datestamp>1263203220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exosquad!  Hands-down best Sci-Fi-action show of the '90's, live or animated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exosquad !
Hands-down best Sci-Fi-action show of the '90 's , live or animated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exosquad!
Hands-down best Sci-Fi-action show of the '90's, live or animated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727350</id>
	<title>Needs More</title>
	<author>Master Moose</author>
	<datestamp>1263243060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. Wrestling! (which I believe is actually getting a reboot)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. Wrestling ! ( which I believe is actually getting a reboot )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. Wrestling! (which I believe is actually getting a reboot)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727430</id>
	<title>Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263243300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What more could any nerd boy want?</p></div><p>The second season not to have happened?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What more could any nerd boy want ? The second season not to have happened ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What more could any nerd boy want?The second season not to have happened?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733762</id>
	<title>everything - avatar++</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263235560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3d and all that, y'know</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3d and all that , y'know</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3d and all that, y'know</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732170</id>
	<title>Re:UFO - No Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good call. UFO was like an X-COM tv series. I'd love to see a modern take on it.</p><p>Give it to Joss Whedon or Christopher Nolan.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good call .
UFO was like an X-COM tv series .
I 'd love to see a modern take on it.Give it to Joss Whedon or Christopher Nolan .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good call.
UFO was like an X-COM tv series.
I'd love to see a modern take on it.Give it to Joss Whedon or Christopher Nolan.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728128</id>
	<title>Re:they should turn 'land of the lost' into a movi</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263202380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care how much or little money they make, I only care of the movie sucks or not. A lot of sucky movies made tons of money, lots of ones I loved lost money.</p><p>Only the film's backers should care if it makes any money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care how much or little money they make , I only care of the movie sucks or not .
A lot of sucky movies made tons of money , lots of ones I loved lost money.Only the film 's backers should care if it makes any money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care how much or little money they make, I only care of the movie sucks or not.
A lot of sucky movies made tons of money, lots of ones I loved lost money.Only the film's backers should care if it makes any money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734760</id>
	<title>Instead of a reboot, some real SciFi</title>
	<author>dgbrownnt</author>
	<datestamp>1263293040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ender's Game, made correctly, with all of its darkness, and a warning that those on anti-depressents may need to increase their dosage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ender 's Game , made correctly , with all of its darkness , and a warning that those on anti-depressents may need to increase their dosage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ender's Game, made correctly, with all of its darkness, and a warning that those on anti-depressents may need to increase their dosage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726792</id>
	<title>Depends on how the "reboot" is done.</title>
	<author>Snyper1000</author>
	<datestamp>1263241440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please, not another Star Trek.  That thing was so awful...If not Star-Trek, totally different names, planets, etc, ok, would have been a great fun movie.  Had they stuck with the Trek story, and had the Temporal Integrity Commission go back and set things right, again, great movie.  Spitting in the face of the well known Star Trek Story, awful piece of junk.  Don't do this to any other good Sci-Fi series, please!  (Feel free to do it to bad ones though and make them good.  Don't have examples, I don't watch bad Sci-Fi<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , not another Star Trek .
That thing was so awful...If not Star-Trek , totally different names , planets , etc , ok , would have been a great fun movie .
Had they stuck with the Trek story , and had the Temporal Integrity Commission go back and set things right , again , great movie .
Spitting in the face of the well known Star Trek Story , awful piece of junk .
Do n't do this to any other good Sci-Fi series , please !
( Feel free to do it to bad ones though and make them good .
Do n't have examples , I do n't watch bad Sci-Fi : ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, not another Star Trek.
That thing was so awful...If not Star-Trek, totally different names, planets, etc, ok, would have been a great fun movie.
Had they stuck with the Trek story, and had the Temporal Integrity Commission go back and set things right, again, great movie.
Spitting in the face of the well known Star Trek Story, awful piece of junk.
Don't do this to any other good Sci-Fi series, please!
(Feel free to do it to bad ones though and make them good.
Don't have examples, I don't watch bad Sci-Fi :) )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728494</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... no seriously. Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast. The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity. I'd like to see some more female leading characters... maybe a range of ages and some interesting quirky characters. The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too. Perhaps we could make a new enemy?</p></div><p>If it were any younger the Bill Gates Borg would have to be replaced by a Teletubie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... no seriously .
Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast .
The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity .
I 'd like to see some more female leading characters... maybe a range of ages and some interesting quirky characters .
The whole " Evil Bill " thing got old too .
Perhaps we could make a new enemy ? If it were any younger the Bill Gates Borg would have to be replaced by a Teletubie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... no seriously.
Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast.
The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity.
I'd like to see some more female leading characters... maybe a range of ages and some interesting quirky characters.
The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too.
Perhaps we could make a new enemy?If it were any younger the Bill Gates Borg would have to be replaced by a Teletubie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731132</id>
	<title>Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>Krishnoid</author>
	<datestamp>1263214800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your wish is <a href="http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/forum/index.php?topic=9961.0" title="startreknewvoyages.com">granted</a> [startreknewvoyages.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your wish is granted [ startreknewvoyages.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your wish is granted [startreknewvoyages.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732456</id>
	<title>Re:Ringworld</title>
	<author>straponego</author>
	<datestamp>1263223800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ringworld would be quite filmable.  Great pace, visuals, some sex, ideas that should translate well enough to screen.  And the science isn't *completely* hand-waving, unlike Trek.  But could we really stand to listen to all the bitching about it being a Halo ripoff?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ringworld would be quite filmable .
Great pace , visuals , some sex , ideas that should translate well enough to screen .
And the science is n't * completely * hand-waving , unlike Trek .
But could we really stand to listen to all the bitching about it being a Halo ripoff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ringworld would be quite filmable.
Great pace, visuals, some sex, ideas that should translate well enough to screen.
And the science isn't *completely* hand-waving, unlike Trek.
But could we really stand to listen to all the bitching about it being a Halo ripoff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731910</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>fraudrogic</author>
	<datestamp>1263219780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Super post.  I was agreeing with parent for purely emotional reasons, but you have pointed out that it couldn't have happened any other way.  I'm glad their dead...for the sake of the story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Super post .
I was agreeing with parent for purely emotional reasons , but you have pointed out that it could n't have happened any other way .
I 'm glad their dead...for the sake of the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Super post.
I was agreeing with parent for purely emotional reasons, but you have pointed out that it couldn't have happened any other way.
I'm glad their dead...for the sake of the story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744500</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>LoyalOpposition</author>
	<datestamp>1263299400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey.</i></p><p>I might suggest that you've missed eight-ninths of the story.  Let me suggest an alternative:  Firefly is primarily a story about how a rag-tag group on the edge of society can make a life for themselves.</p><p>But let's suppose for a moment that you're right and the story is Mal and his journey.  Let me propose this question: Why should I watch a series about the events that happen after the main story is resolved?</p><p>-Loyal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey.I might suggest that you 've missed eight-ninths of the story .
Let me suggest an alternative : Firefly is primarily a story about how a rag-tag group on the edge of society can make a life for themselves.But let 's suppose for a moment that you 're right and the story is Mal and his journey .
Let me propose this question : Why should I watch a series about the events that happen after the main story is resolved ? -Loyal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey.I might suggest that you've missed eight-ninths of the story.
Let me suggest an alternative:  Firefly is primarily a story about how a rag-tag group on the edge of society can make a life for themselves.But let's suppose for a moment that you're right and the story is Mal and his journey.
Let me propose this question: Why should I watch a series about the events that happen after the main story is resolved?-Loyal</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727530</id>
	<title>Why not SyFy?</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1263200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not long ago Wired ran their own list of which SciFi (not SyFy!) shows were in need of another go 'round</p></div></blockquote><p>Couldn't "SyFy" have a reboot?  Maybe it could go back to having a less inane name and try airing programs that were worth watching.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not long ago Wired ran their own list of which SciFi ( not SyFy !
) shows were in need of another go 'roundCould n't " SyFy " have a reboot ?
Maybe it could go back to having a less inane name and try airing programs that were worth watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not long ago Wired ran their own list of which SciFi (not SyFy!
) shows were in need of another go 'roundCouldn't "SyFy" have a reboot?
Maybe it could go back to having a less inane name and try airing programs that were worth watching.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729404</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>cmdr\_klarg</author>
	<datestamp>1263206880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>See, that's what would be rebooted.  The short lifespan and the execs would be booted.  With a bladed boot.  Into a volcano.</p><p>Even if we don't restart the show, I'd like to see them get kicked into a volcano.</p></div><p>No, nothing so elaborate.  Simply toss them into Serenity's intake manifold.  *shred*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>See , that 's what would be rebooted .
The short lifespan and the execs would be booted .
With a bladed boot .
Into a volcano.Even if we do n't restart the show , I 'd like to see them get kicked into a volcano.No , nothing so elaborate .
Simply toss them into Serenity 's intake manifold .
* shred *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, that's what would be rebooted.
The short lifespan and the execs would be booted.
With a bladed boot.
Into a volcano.Even if we don't restart the show, I'd like to see them get kicked into a volcano.No, nothing so elaborate.
Simply toss them into Serenity's intake manifold.
*shred*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729262</id>
	<title>(Not) Flame Bait.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not Flame Bait:  Harry Potter.</p><p>Flame Bait: Fantasy and SciFi are the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Flame Bait : Harry Potter.Flame Bait : Fantasy and SciFi are the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Flame Bait:  Harry Potter.Flame Bait: Fantasy and SciFi are the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729454</id>
	<title>Re:Star Wars</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1263207060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Starwars. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.</p></div><p>Lets let Uwe Boll remake them, should be an improvement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Starwars .
Episodes 1 , 2 and 3 especially.Lets let Uwe Boll remake them , should be an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starwars.
Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.Lets let Uwe Boll remake them, should be an improvement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30740964</id>
	<title>Re:Star Wars</title>
	<author>penguinchris</author>
	<datestamp>1263325920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Star Wars needs to be "rebooted" in the same sense as Star Trek was... there is so much in the "expanded universe" or even just the video games that endless movies/shows could be produced without even having to come up with new stories - they're already out there, waiting. A lot of it is crap, but there's good stuff too.</p><p>If you did want new stuff, just commission a good writer to come up with a story. You can have a whole new set of characters, who of course will interact at least a couple of times with some of the original characters. If you set it after Return of the Jedi, you can even use the original actors. We don't need further prequel stories, though - Lucas screwed that up pretty badly already. The Clone Wars animated shorts were pretty much better than the films, which is sad (whatever CGI clone wars show they have now looks awful, though). I thought they were going to do a live-action Star Wars show, actually... don't know what happened to that. Could have been good.</p><p>Lucas gave us an interesting (if relatively simple) universe to work within, and there are endless possibilities. Of course, it would be perceived as a cash-in on the Star Wars name, so it would *have* to be pretty darn good - it would be held to a higher standard than a wholly new story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Star Wars needs to be " rebooted " in the same sense as Star Trek was... there is so much in the " expanded universe " or even just the video games that endless movies/shows could be produced without even having to come up with new stories - they 're already out there , waiting .
A lot of it is crap , but there 's good stuff too.If you did want new stuff , just commission a good writer to come up with a story .
You can have a whole new set of characters , who of course will interact at least a couple of times with some of the original characters .
If you set it after Return of the Jedi , you can even use the original actors .
We do n't need further prequel stories , though - Lucas screwed that up pretty badly already .
The Clone Wars animated shorts were pretty much better than the films , which is sad ( whatever CGI clone wars show they have now looks awful , though ) .
I thought they were going to do a live-action Star Wars show , actually... do n't know what happened to that .
Could have been good.Lucas gave us an interesting ( if relatively simple ) universe to work within , and there are endless possibilities .
Of course , it would be perceived as a cash-in on the Star Wars name , so it would * have * to be pretty darn good - it would be held to a higher standard than a wholly new story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Star Wars needs to be "rebooted" in the same sense as Star Trek was... there is so much in the "expanded universe" or even just the video games that endless movies/shows could be produced without even having to come up with new stories - they're already out there, waiting.
A lot of it is crap, but there's good stuff too.If you did want new stuff, just commission a good writer to come up with a story.
You can have a whole new set of characters, who of course will interact at least a couple of times with some of the original characters.
If you set it after Return of the Jedi, you can even use the original actors.
We don't need further prequel stories, though - Lucas screwed that up pretty badly already.
The Clone Wars animated shorts were pretty much better than the films, which is sad (whatever CGI clone wars show they have now looks awful, though).
I thought they were going to do a live-action Star Wars show, actually... don't know what happened to that.
Could have been good.Lucas gave us an interesting (if relatively simple) universe to work within, and there are endless possibilities.
Of course, it would be perceived as a cash-in on the Star Wars name, so it would *have* to be pretty darn good - it would be held to a higher standard than a wholly new story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727678</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1263200880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am with you. But any sci fi written today will be about the environment and health care - a dated subject. I'd like to see A Brave New World made into a serial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am with you .
But any sci fi written today will be about the environment and health care - a dated subject .
I 'd like to see A Brave New World made into a serial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am with you.
But any sci fi written today will be about the environment and health care - a dated subject.
I'd like to see A Brave New World made into a serial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730284</id>
	<title>Why re-boot?</title>
	<author>eyenot</author>
	<datestamp>1263210540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of great scientifictions out there that were never made into radio operas let alone screenplays. Egads, why spend all this money just rehashing something that already exists as a complete and finished work? The better investment would be to breech some new subject into being, to expand the artistic collective of scientifictions overall, thus enriching the minds and lives of people who as of yet have absolutely no idea what the amazing future holds in such far-off worlds as the amazing year 2050!</p><p>THERE WILL BE:</p><p>Personal Rocket-Jet Propulsion Backpack CHECK!</p><p>Aerial Autocar CHECK!</p><p>Bees the size of small hummingbirds that are so domesticated you can direct them to supple out your nose perfectly clean using their robust and godgiven kneebritches CHECK!</p><p>SO MUCH MORE awaits us in the Amazing year Twenty-Fifty that the human race will fail to become aware of if all we manage to do is keep telling the same OLDE-TIMEY TALES over and over and over again! If that's all we ever did then, by golly, we would still believe that mankind is the center of the universe! Or that beans and peas are totally unrelated! We would believe that rockets are only for children to play with, and look at what we know today: "KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN"! There's no telling what leaps of evolution we may take if we learn to adapt more of the as-yet-unadapted bookwritten scientifiction tales of MARVEL AND WONDER into radio-operas and "talkie" motion pictures!</p><p>Or else -- we may NEVER get to see the amazing year 2050!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of great scientifictions out there that were never made into radio operas let alone screenplays .
Egads , why spend all this money just rehashing something that already exists as a complete and finished work ?
The better investment would be to breech some new subject into being , to expand the artistic collective of scientifictions overall , thus enriching the minds and lives of people who as of yet have absolutely no idea what the amazing future holds in such far-off worlds as the amazing year 2050 ! THERE WILL BE : Personal Rocket-Jet Propulsion Backpack CHECK ! Aerial Autocar CHECK ! Bees the size of small hummingbirds that are so domesticated you can direct them to supple out your nose perfectly clean using their robust and godgiven kneebritches CHECK ! SO MUCH MORE awaits us in the Amazing year Twenty-Fifty that the human race will fail to become aware of if all we manage to do is keep telling the same OLDE-TIMEY TALES over and over and over again !
If that 's all we ever did then , by golly , we would still believe that mankind is the center of the universe !
Or that beans and peas are totally unrelated !
We would believe that rockets are only for children to play with , and look at what we know today : " KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN " !
There 's no telling what leaps of evolution we may take if we learn to adapt more of the as-yet-unadapted bookwritten scientifiction tales of MARVEL AND WONDER into radio-operas and " talkie " motion pictures ! Or else -- we may NEVER get to see the amazing year 2050 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of great scientifictions out there that were never made into radio operas let alone screenplays.
Egads, why spend all this money just rehashing something that already exists as a complete and finished work?
The better investment would be to breech some new subject into being, to expand the artistic collective of scientifictions overall, thus enriching the minds and lives of people who as of yet have absolutely no idea what the amazing future holds in such far-off worlds as the amazing year 2050!THERE WILL BE:Personal Rocket-Jet Propulsion Backpack CHECK!Aerial Autocar CHECK!Bees the size of small hummingbirds that are so domesticated you can direct them to supple out your nose perfectly clean using their robust and godgiven kneebritches CHECK!SO MUCH MORE awaits us in the Amazing year Twenty-Fifty that the human race will fail to become aware of if all we manage to do is keep telling the same OLDE-TIMEY TALES over and over and over again!
If that's all we ever did then, by golly, we would still believe that mankind is the center of the universe!
Or that beans and peas are totally unrelated!
We would believe that rockets are only for children to play with, and look at what we know today: "KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN"!
There's no telling what leaps of evolution we may take if we learn to adapt more of the as-yet-unadapted bookwritten scientifiction tales of MARVEL AND WONDER into radio-operas and "talkie" motion pictures!Or else -- we may NEVER get to see the amazing year 2050!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727526</id>
	<title>Buck Rogers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to see a reimagining of Buck Rogers. =-) Found myself watching the two-hour pilot Saturday night on Netflix<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Such incredible potential. Such a short life. The series didn't have a single point to its plot -- instead, seeming to be a hodpodge of episodes like 'Star Trek' -- but maybe a reboot could fashion it in the form of the Great Epic Story of 'Babylon 5'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see a reimagining of Buck Rogers .
= - ) Found myself watching the two-hour pilot Saturday night on Netflix ... Such incredible potential .
Such a short life .
The series did n't have a single point to its plot -- instead , seeming to be a hodpodge of episodes like 'Star Trek ' -- but maybe a reboot could fashion it in the form of the Great Epic Story of 'Babylon 5' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see a reimagining of Buck Rogers.
=-) Found myself watching the two-hour pilot Saturday night on Netflix ... Such incredible potential.
Such a short life.
The series didn't have a single point to its plot -- instead, seeming to be a hodpodge of episodes like 'Star Trek' -- but maybe a reboot could fashion it in the form of the Great Epic Story of 'Babylon 5'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741832</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>Comrade Ogilvy</author>
	<datestamp>1263329520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Miranda and its secrecy is easy to believe IMO.


By its nature, one might expect Miranda to be a bit hush-hush, at least until it was a proven success.


It was a risky experiment that might become the prototype for re-engineering the human race.  That something like that might go wrong was obvious.  That something might go so catastrophically wrong so quickly was not.  It was always plausible that they might need to employ Pax 1.1 or Pax 2.0 or Pax 3.2, before bragging to the whole galaxy.


The Alliance had the wisdom to pick a far corner of space that was out in the boondocks, in the first place.  Once the Reavers were unleashed, no one was going to poke around a dangerous neighborhood looking for a failed terraforming effort.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Miranda and its secrecy is easy to believe IMO .
By its nature , one might expect Miranda to be a bit hush-hush , at least until it was a proven success .
It was a risky experiment that might become the prototype for re-engineering the human race .
That something like that might go wrong was obvious .
That something might go so catastrophically wrong so quickly was not .
It was always plausible that they might need to employ Pax 1.1 or Pax 2.0 or Pax 3.2 , before bragging to the whole galaxy .
The Alliance had the wisdom to pick a far corner of space that was out in the boondocks , in the first place .
Once the Reavers were unleashed , no one was going to poke around a dangerous neighborhood looking for a failed terraforming effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Miranda and its secrecy is easy to believe IMO.
By its nature, one might expect Miranda to be a bit hush-hush, at least until it was a proven success.
It was a risky experiment that might become the prototype for re-engineering the human race.
That something like that might go wrong was obvious.
That something might go so catastrophically wrong so quickly was not.
It was always plausible that they might need to employ Pax 1.1 or Pax 2.0 or Pax 3.2, before bragging to the whole galaxy.
The Alliance had the wisdom to pick a far corner of space that was out in the boondocks, in the first place.
Once the Reavers were unleashed, no one was going to poke around a dangerous neighborhood looking for a failed terraforming effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727422</id>
	<title>Re:Battlestar; Just the 4th Season</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1263243300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um shit, I didn't pay attention to your subject line.  I haven't actually made it to season 4 yet.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Well my fault not yours</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um shit , I did n't pay attention to your subject line .
I have n't actually made it to season 4 yet .
  Well my fault not yours</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um shit, I didn't pay attention to your subject line.
I haven't actually made it to season 4 yet.
  Well my fault not yours</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263202020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The part that needs to be eliminated in the reboot is the movie. I want to see a series that includes Wash and Sheppard Book.</p></div><p>Maybe some things in the movie didn't fit the way they should have, but I don't think that the death of Wash and Book are among these.  Were they likable characters? Yes. Are you supposed to be sad that they died? Yes.</p><p>Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey.  At the beginning of the series he is battle-hardened and stoic while being burdened with Brown Coats' loss to the Core Planets.  He is very much a closed-off person and the only glimpses we see of his humanity are his feelings for the ship and a strange sense of loyalty to his crew.  He never gives any further explanation to why he protects them other than that they are his crew.  There is a common theme throughout the series dealing with the stalled relationship between Mal and Inara due mainly to Mal's inability to open himself emotionally.</p><p>The events of the movie bring Mal's humanity back.  The uncovering of the atrocities performed by the Core Planets government gives Mal a sense of purpose outside what we saw in the series which was to simply stay alive and flying.  The deaths of Wash and Book uncover the real reason that Mal was so protective of his crew and this is alluded to in the last lines of the movie.  Mal explains to River that the secret to captaining a ship is love.  He protected his crew because he loved them and he is finally able to admit it, but it cost the lives of two good friends for him to realize it. Just previous to this scene Mal expresses to Inara that he would like it if she stayed on the ship, a tacit admission of his feelings for her.</p><p>If you don't like the movie because two good characters died, then you are selling the writing short. They died for a reason so that the main protagonist can undergo a change in character.  If you felt sad that they died then the writers did their job of good writing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The part that needs to be eliminated in the reboot is the movie .
I want to see a series that includes Wash and Sheppard Book.Maybe some things in the movie did n't fit the way they should have , but I do n't think that the death of Wash and Book are among these .
Were they likable characters ?
Yes. Are you supposed to be sad that they died ?
Yes.Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey .
At the beginning of the series he is battle-hardened and stoic while being burdened with Brown Coats ' loss to the Core Planets .
He is very much a closed-off person and the only glimpses we see of his humanity are his feelings for the ship and a strange sense of loyalty to his crew .
He never gives any further explanation to why he protects them other than that they are his crew .
There is a common theme throughout the series dealing with the stalled relationship between Mal and Inara due mainly to Mal 's inability to open himself emotionally.The events of the movie bring Mal 's humanity back .
The uncovering of the atrocities performed by the Core Planets government gives Mal a sense of purpose outside what we saw in the series which was to simply stay alive and flying .
The deaths of Wash and Book uncover the real reason that Mal was so protective of his crew and this is alluded to in the last lines of the movie .
Mal explains to River that the secret to captaining a ship is love .
He protected his crew because he loved them and he is finally able to admit it , but it cost the lives of two good friends for him to realize it .
Just previous to this scene Mal expresses to Inara that he would like it if she stayed on the ship , a tacit admission of his feelings for her.If you do n't like the movie because two good characters died , then you are selling the writing short .
They died for a reason so that the main protagonist can undergo a change in character .
If you felt sad that they died then the writers did their job of good writing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The part that needs to be eliminated in the reboot is the movie.
I want to see a series that includes Wash and Sheppard Book.Maybe some things in the movie didn't fit the way they should have, but I don't think that the death of Wash and Book are among these.
Were they likable characters?
Yes. Are you supposed to be sad that they died?
Yes.Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey.
At the beginning of the series he is battle-hardened and stoic while being burdened with Brown Coats' loss to the Core Planets.
He is very much a closed-off person and the only glimpses we see of his humanity are his feelings for the ship and a strange sense of loyalty to his crew.
He never gives any further explanation to why he protects them other than that they are his crew.
There is a common theme throughout the series dealing with the stalled relationship between Mal and Inara due mainly to Mal's inability to open himself emotionally.The events of the movie bring Mal's humanity back.
The uncovering of the atrocities performed by the Core Planets government gives Mal a sense of purpose outside what we saw in the series which was to simply stay alive and flying.
The deaths of Wash and Book uncover the real reason that Mal was so protective of his crew and this is alluded to in the last lines of the movie.
Mal explains to River that the secret to captaining a ship is love.
He protected his crew because he loved them and he is finally able to admit it, but it cost the lives of two good friends for him to realize it.
Just previous to this scene Mal expresses to Inara that he would like it if she stayed on the ship, a tacit admission of his feelings for her.If you don't like the movie because two good characters died, then you are selling the writing short.
They died for a reason so that the main protagonist can undergo a change in character.
If you felt sad that they died then the writers did their job of good writing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729216</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction versus Science Fantasy</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1263206280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Take a look at "I, Robot" for example.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  To me, that's poor story adaptation, and made for poor science fiction.</p></div><p>Actually, it wasn't story adaption at all.  They acquired the rights to "I, Robot", then slapped the name on a script that had already been written with no intention of being an "I, Robot" movie and just renamed a few characters and the name of the company making the robots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at " I , Robot " for example .
... To me , that 's poor story adaptation , and made for poor science fiction.Actually , it was n't story adaption at all .
They acquired the rights to " I , Robot " , then slapped the name on a script that had already been written with no intention of being an " I , Robot " movie and just renamed a few characters and the name of the company making the robots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at "I, Robot" for example.
...  To me, that's poor story adaptation, and made for poor science fiction.Actually, it wasn't story adaption at all.
They acquired the rights to "I, Robot", then slapped the name on a script that had already been written with no intention of being an "I, Robot" movie and just renamed a few characters and the name of the company making the robots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726784</id>
	<title>Battlestar; Just the 4th Season</title>
	<author>LibertineR</author>
	<datestamp>1263241380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or maybe just the ending? <p>
Suggestions:

Kara aint no ghost, but a clone or maybe.....A CYLON, bitches? </p><p>
Let the President live to set foot on Earth, before killing her off, heartless bitches?</p><p>
Dont kill the hot black chick via suicide; let her F#$@ her way to an early grave? </p><p>
Must we RAM the BASESTAR? I mean, really? </p><p>
Go back to Season 2's "Exodus" for inspiration. Do that shit again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe just the ending ?
Suggestions : Kara aint no ghost , but a clone or maybe.....A CYLON , bitches ?
Let the President live to set foot on Earth , before killing her off , heartless bitches ?
Dont kill the hot black chick via suicide ; let her F # $ @ her way to an early grave ?
Must we RAM the BASESTAR ?
I mean , really ?
Go back to Season 2 's " Exodus " for inspiration .
Do that shit again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe just the ending?
Suggestions:

Kara aint no ghost, but a clone or maybe.....A CYLON, bitches?
Let the President live to set foot on Earth, before killing her off, heartless bitches?
Dont kill the hot black chick via suicide; let her F#$@ her way to an early grave?
Must we RAM the BASESTAR?
I mean, really?
Go back to Season 2's "Exodus" for inspiration.
Do that shit again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728686</id>
	<title>Re:Max Headroom</title>
	<author>PsychoSlashDot</author>
	<datestamp>1263204300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is me, rather annoyed that a day after my mod points expired without comments I felt informed enough to moderate... you post this.</p><p>Please consider this my +1 Insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is me , rather annoyed that a day after my mod points expired without comments I felt informed enough to moderate... you post this.Please consider this my + 1 Insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is me, rather annoyed that a day after my mod points expired without comments I felt informed enough to moderate... you post this.Please consider this my +1 Insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30745326</id>
	<title>Hey!</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1263304020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about <a href="http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/12/1453211" title="slashdot.org">Spider-Man?</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Spider-Man ?
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Spider-Man?
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729222</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>Tyr\_7BE</author>
	<datestamp>1263206280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So...SciFi Robin Hood?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So...SciFi Robin Hood ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...SciFi Robin Hood?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727694</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1263200940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A TV series based on "Little Brother" would be a lot of fun (and offer a lot of great opportunities for commentary on our fear-based modern society).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A TV series based on " Little Brother " would be a lot of fun ( and offer a lot of great opportunities for commentary on our fear-based modern society ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A TV series based on "Little Brother" would be a lot of fun (and offer a lot of great opportunities for commentary on our fear-based modern society).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730546</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1263211740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't believe that one's missing from Wired's original list. The only entry on that list that even makes sense is Buck Rogers. All the others are recent, current, already restarted or animations. Not really the same thing.</p><p>In any case, the fan list has far better suggestions, including Blake's 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't believe that one 's missing from Wired 's original list .
The only entry on that list that even makes sense is Buck Rogers .
All the others are recent , current , already restarted or animations .
Not really the same thing.In any case , the fan list has far better suggestions , including Blake 's 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't believe that one's missing from Wired's original list.
The only entry on that list that even makes sense is Buck Rogers.
All the others are recent, current, already restarted or animations.
Not really the same thing.In any case, the fan list has far better suggestions, including Blake's 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728710</id>
	<title>The SyFy Channel</title>
	<author>Baloo Uriza</author>
	<datestamp>1263204420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I realize that the question was "NOT SyFy," but really, what's to like about the network in it's present form?  Reboot it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize that the question was " NOT SyFy , " but really , what 's to like about the network in it 's present form ?
Reboot it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize that the question was "NOT SyFy," but really, what's to like about the network in it's present form?
Reboot it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727710</id>
	<title>Re:Reboot should get a Reboot!</title>
	<author>sajuuk</author>
	<datestamp>1263200940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dangnabbit, you beat me to it!

WARNING.  INCOMING GAME.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dangnabbit , you beat me to it !
WARNING. INCOMING GAME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dangnabbit, you beat me to it!
WARNING.  INCOMING GAME.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730826</id>
	<title>Re:B5: Crusade</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1263213180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had the luxury of downloading the entire series aired, so I could just skip the super gay theme song (also why I changed the channel when it was on TV and never watched).</p><p>The series itself is one of my favorites of all the Star Treck series. It has to at least be better than the Next Generation which took all the mystery and danger out of space by exploring the hollow-deck on their luxury liner where everyone is above average. Or how about deep space 9 with the incredibly forced acting and to 'boldly go nowhere' plot. It also put hot chicks back in to Star Treck, and dropped the feminist / everyone is equal after school special crap being pushed through the rest of the series.</p><p>I honestly think it was much closer to the original series than any of the others, and most importantly the tradition of the womanizing fly by the seat of his pants kirk alone in a dangerous and unknown universe. Lots of morally ambiguous situations for the captain to debate, such as sleeping with the hot Vulcan first officer or raiding another ship. If you watch it a few times, you will also see how they really went out of their way to stay consistent with the original series story and history, and still make the other unimaginatively dead series make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the luxury of downloading the entire series aired , so I could just skip the super gay theme song ( also why I changed the channel when it was on TV and never watched ) .The series itself is one of my favorites of all the Star Treck series .
It has to at least be better than the Next Generation which took all the mystery and danger out of space by exploring the hollow-deck on their luxury liner where everyone is above average .
Or how about deep space 9 with the incredibly forced acting and to 'boldly go nowhere ' plot .
It also put hot chicks back in to Star Treck , and dropped the feminist / everyone is equal after school special crap being pushed through the rest of the series.I honestly think it was much closer to the original series than any of the others , and most importantly the tradition of the womanizing fly by the seat of his pants kirk alone in a dangerous and unknown universe .
Lots of morally ambiguous situations for the captain to debate , such as sleeping with the hot Vulcan first officer or raiding another ship .
If you watch it a few times , you will also see how they really went out of their way to stay consistent with the original series story and history , and still make the other unimaginatively dead series make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the luxury of downloading the entire series aired, so I could just skip the super gay theme song (also why I changed the channel when it was on TV and never watched).The series itself is one of my favorites of all the Star Treck series.
It has to at least be better than the Next Generation which took all the mystery and danger out of space by exploring the hollow-deck on their luxury liner where everyone is above average.
Or how about deep space 9 with the incredibly forced acting and to 'boldly go nowhere' plot.
It also put hot chicks back in to Star Treck, and dropped the feminist / everyone is equal after school special crap being pushed through the rest of the series.I honestly think it was much closer to the original series than any of the others, and most importantly the tradition of the womanizing fly by the seat of his pants kirk alone in a dangerous and unknown universe.
Lots of morally ambiguous situations for the captain to debate, such as sleeping with the hot Vulcan first officer or raiding another ship.
If you watch it a few times, you will also see how they really went out of their way to stay consistent with the original series story and history, and still make the other unimaginatively dead series make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728420</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>kandela</author>
	<datestamp>1263203460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blake's 7 would be interesting, another British show from that era that might be worth another go around is U.F.O.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blake 's 7 would be interesting , another British show from that era that might be worth another go around is U.F.O .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blake's 7 would be interesting, another British show from that era that might be worth another go around is U.F.O.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728562</id>
	<title>Re:Lensman.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would need to be done as a 1950's view of the future.  Zoot suits, lots of flashy vehicles with fins, James Earl Jones as the voice of Mentor.  Really, do a seriously retro SF thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would need to be done as a 1950 's view of the future .
Zoot suits , lots of flashy vehicles with fins , James Earl Jones as the voice of Mentor .
Really , do a seriously retro SF thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would need to be done as a 1950's view of the future.
Zoot suits, lots of flashy vehicles with fins, James Earl Jones as the voice of Mentor.
Really, do a seriously retro SF thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728298</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>chaim79</author>
	<datestamp>1263202980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read through the Firefly RPG sourcebooks they actually explain some of the science behind this, it's not all planets in one system, it's four stars orbiting a fifth, each with a bunch of planets and moons, they figured out how to ignite brown dwarfs into proto stars and adjust the gravity of planets to be close to earth norm, between those three developments they were able to take what would have been a small handful of livible planets and turned them into more than a hundred, all within reasonable non-light-speed-breaking travel (we figured out with Fireflies propulsion system, it would take a month and a half to go from the Core planets to the star system that held Miranda).</p><p>It also worked for keeping Miranda quiet, the star system it was part of was mostly corporately owned by Blue Sun corporation, farthest star out from the core star (white sun), and Miranda orbited around a ex-brown dwarf proto star 23 AU out from it's primary (so somewhere between Uranus and Neptune) putting it out of normal travel. Also, considering how much is computerized today, how many people do you think would have done the orbital math to figure out that there is another planet out there, and how many would have trusted that the computer told it to go here from there.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read through the Firefly RPG sourcebooks they actually explain some of the science behind this , it 's not all planets in one system , it 's four stars orbiting a fifth , each with a bunch of planets and moons , they figured out how to ignite brown dwarfs into proto stars and adjust the gravity of planets to be close to earth norm , between those three developments they were able to take what would have been a small handful of livible planets and turned them into more than a hundred , all within reasonable non-light-speed-breaking travel ( we figured out with Fireflies propulsion system , it would take a month and a half to go from the Core planets to the star system that held Miranda ) .It also worked for keeping Miranda quiet , the star system it was part of was mostly corporately owned by Blue Sun corporation , farthest star out from the core star ( white sun ) , and Miranda orbited around a ex-brown dwarf proto star 23 AU out from it 's primary ( so somewhere between Uranus and Neptune ) putting it out of normal travel .
Also , considering how much is computerized today , how many people do you think would have done the orbital math to figure out that there is another planet out there , and how many would have trusted that the computer told it to go here from there .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read through the Firefly RPG sourcebooks they actually explain some of the science behind this, it's not all planets in one system, it's four stars orbiting a fifth, each with a bunch of planets and moons, they figured out how to ignite brown dwarfs into proto stars and adjust the gravity of planets to be close to earth norm, between those three developments they were able to take what would have been a small handful of livible planets and turned them into more than a hundred, all within reasonable non-light-speed-breaking travel (we figured out with Fireflies propulsion system, it would take a month and a half to go from the Core planets to the star system that held Miranda).It also worked for keeping Miranda quiet, the star system it was part of was mostly corporately owned by Blue Sun corporation, farthest star out from the core star (white sun), and Miranda orbited around a ex-brown dwarf proto star 23 AU out from it's primary (so somewhere between Uranus and Neptune) putting it out of normal travel.
Also, considering how much is computerized today, how many people do you think would have done the orbital math to figure out that there is another planet out there, and how many would have trusted that the computer told it to go here from there.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729856</id>
	<title>SciFI Reboot Idea</title>
	<author>bobby50371</author>
	<datestamp>1263208560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want SOMEONE to do a reboot of seaQuest DSV...the technology has improved so much that the show could afford to do more than what they could do back then.  Bring Back seaQuest!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want SOMEONE to do a reboot of seaQuest DSV...the technology has improved so much that the show could afford to do more than what they could do back then .
Bring Back seaQuest ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want SOMEONE to do a reboot of seaQuest DSV...the technology has improved so much that the show could afford to do more than what they could do back then.
Bring Back seaQuest!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634</id>
	<title>Maybe</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1263240960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe screenwriters and filmmakers could come up with an ORIGINAL idea for a change. Getting tired of inferior remakes, all they do is cause me to download and watch the original again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe screenwriters and filmmakers could come up with an ORIGINAL idea for a change .
Getting tired of inferior remakes , all they do is cause me to download and watch the original again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe screenwriters and filmmakers could come up with an ORIGINAL idea for a change.
Getting tired of inferior remakes, all they do is cause me to download and watch the original again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726848</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reboot? I'd take any excuse to see new Firefly. Or if reboot means that not all the same actors are available, then that'd be okay too. Or even if it's a spin off on another part of the universe, perhaps involving an obscure character like Badger - pretty much every bit of that show was pure win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reboot ?
I 'd take any excuse to see new Firefly .
Or if reboot means that not all the same actors are available , then that 'd be okay too .
Or even if it 's a spin off on another part of the universe , perhaps involving an obscure character like Badger - pretty much every bit of that show was pure win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reboot?
I'd take any excuse to see new Firefly.
Or if reboot means that not all the same actors are available, then that'd be okay too.
Or even if it's a spin off on another part of the universe, perhaps involving an obscure character like Badger - pretty much every bit of that show was pure win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727602</id>
	<title>Lexx</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1263200580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it could be even stranger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it could be even stranger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it could be even stranger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727946</id>
	<title>Fat Guy Stuck in Internet</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1263201720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat\_guy\_stuck\_in\_internet" title="wikipedia.org">FGSiI</a> [wikipedia.org] could use an update for modern audiences.  Maybe let The Gemberling gain a few more pounds and then have every episode be based around Maze Master dance sequences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think FGSiI [ wikipedia.org ] could use an update for modern audiences .
Maybe let The Gemberling gain a few more pounds and then have every episode be based around Maze Master dance sequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think FGSiI [wikipedia.org] could use an update for modern audiences.
Maybe let The Gemberling gain a few more pounds and then have every episode be based around Maze Master dance sequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728940</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263205260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>NThe people who ply the lanes of space would neither "overlook" nor "forget" an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years.  or could such a thing be hidden as, outer-most or not, it would show up on everybody's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots. Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.</i></p><p>Well yeah, that's how they knew how to get there.  River's psychic memory didn't even tell her what Miranda <i>was</i>, much less give coordinates.  Once they figured out what it was, they knew right how to find it from records.  But nobody but the Serenity crew was crazy enough to want to go there because it was in Reaver territory, nor did they have a reason to.</p><p><i>The original one from the series (mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc) was good enough. Hell, the movie contradicted the series directly. If the Pax caused reaverdom, the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudln't have worked</i></p><p>"Mental erosion" is okay, but doesn't explain how such a large population of Reavers came to be and gathered together, rather than just being random isolated cases of craziness.  Pax shows how an initial population was formed.  However neither explanation precludes others suffering from mental breakdowns once exposed to the insanity of the Reavers.  Why would you assume that "Pax causes reaverdom" to mean "<i>only</i> Pax can cause reaverdom"?</p><p>That guy wasn't tortured btw... he only <i>saw</i> what they did to others (and lived because they didn't know he was there).  Which makes perfect sense, even if the end result was him merely being a violent crazy, not technically a "Reaver".  You need an explanation for why Reavers came to be.  It doesn't take much explaining at all to see why someone else could be driven mad by exposure to Reaver's inhumanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NThe people who ply the lanes of space would neither " overlook " nor " forget " an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years .
or could such a thing be hidden as , outer-most or not , it would show up on everybody 's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots .
Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.Well yeah , that 's how they knew how to get there .
River 's psychic memory did n't even tell her what Miranda was , much less give coordinates .
Once they figured out what it was , they knew right how to find it from records .
But nobody but the Serenity crew was crazy enough to want to go there because it was in Reaver territory , nor did they have a reason to.The original one from the series ( mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc ) was good enough .
Hell , the movie contradicted the series directly .
If the Pax caused reaverdom , the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudl n't have worked " Mental erosion " is okay , but does n't explain how such a large population of Reavers came to be and gathered together , rather than just being random isolated cases of craziness .
Pax shows how an initial population was formed .
However neither explanation precludes others suffering from mental breakdowns once exposed to the insanity of the Reavers .
Why would you assume that " Pax causes reaverdom " to mean " only Pax can cause reaverdom " ? That guy was n't tortured btw... he only saw what they did to others ( and lived because they did n't know he was there ) .
Which makes perfect sense , even if the end result was him merely being a violent crazy , not technically a " Reaver " .
You need an explanation for why Reavers came to be .
It does n't take much explaining at all to see why someone else could be driven mad by exposure to Reaver 's inhumanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NThe people who ply the lanes of space would neither "overlook" nor "forget" an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years.
or could such a thing be hidden as, outer-most or not, it would show up on everybody's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots.
Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.Well yeah, that's how they knew how to get there.
River's psychic memory didn't even tell her what Miranda was, much less give coordinates.
Once they figured out what it was, they knew right how to find it from records.
But nobody but the Serenity crew was crazy enough to want to go there because it was in Reaver territory, nor did they have a reason to.The original one from the series (mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc) was good enough.
Hell, the movie contradicted the series directly.
If the Pax caused reaverdom, the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudln't have worked"Mental erosion" is okay, but doesn't explain how such a large population of Reavers came to be and gathered together, rather than just being random isolated cases of craziness.
Pax shows how an initial population was formed.
However neither explanation precludes others suffering from mental breakdowns once exposed to the insanity of the Reavers.
Why would you assume that "Pax causes reaverdom" to mean "only Pax can cause reaverdom"?That guy wasn't tortured btw... he only saw what they did to others (and lived because they didn't know he was there).
Which makes perfect sense, even if the end result was him merely being a violent crazy, not technically a "Reaver".
You need an explanation for why Reavers came to be.
It doesn't take much explaining at all to see why someone else could be driven mad by exposure to Reaver's inhumanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733164</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly? Here's why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The movie needs to be declared out-of-cannon before the series would be workable.</i> <br> <br>

<b>CANON</b>:  considered to be a legitimate portion of a larger body of work<br> <br>
<b>CANNON</b>:  a big-ass gun, or a 70's prime-time drama series starring William Conrad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The movie needs to be declared out-of-cannon before the series would be workable .
CANON : considered to be a legitimate portion of a larger body of work CANNON : a big-ass gun , or a 70 's prime-time drama series starring William Conrad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The movie needs to be declared out-of-cannon before the series would be workable.
CANON:  considered to be a legitimate portion of a larger body of work 
CANNON:  a big-ass gun, or a 70's prime-time drama series starring William Conrad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727794</id>
	<title>Reboot these though I agree new ideas are better</title>
	<author>Marrow</author>
	<datestamp>1263201240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Johnny Quest as live action<br>Starblazers<br>Ghost in the Shell<br>UFO<br>Space 1999<br>My favorite martian<br>Dresden Files<br>Probe  (yeah, you never saw it, I know)<br>MacGuyver</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Johnny Quest as live actionStarblazersGhost in the ShellUFOSpace 1999My favorite martianDresden FilesProbe ( yeah , you never saw it , I know ) MacGuyver</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Johnny Quest as live actionStarblazersGhost in the ShellUFOSpace 1999My favorite martianDresden FilesProbe  (yeah, you never saw it, I know)MacGuyver</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730450</id>
	<title>Outer Limits? Wut?</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1263211260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is it a reboot when the series itself is an assortment of more or less unrelated short stories? The Outer Limits <i>did</i> have a revival back in the 90s, and it was... well, the same show that it was in the 50s (except for being in color, having better effects, and worse writing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it a reboot when the series itself is an assortment of more or less unrelated short stories ?
The Outer Limits did have a revival back in the 90s , and it was... well , the same show that it was in the 50s ( except for being in color , having better effects , and worse writing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it a reboot when the series itself is an assortment of more or less unrelated short stories?
The Outer Limits did have a revival back in the 90s, and it was... well, the same show that it was in the 50s (except for being in color, having better effects, and worse writing).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727200</id>
	<title>Firefly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod me redundant - I don't care.

</p><p>Firefly Firefly Firefly.

</p><p>The more times someone sees this, the more of a chance it will happen.

</p><p>MORE FIREFLY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod me redundant - I do n't care .
Firefly Firefly Firefly .
The more times someone sees this , the more of a chance it will happen .
MORE FIREFLY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod me redundant - I don't care.
Firefly Firefly Firefly.
The more times someone sees this, the more of a chance it will happen.
MORE FIREFLY.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726910</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Dude, Hollywood doesn't work with imagination, they rehash the same old shite over and over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , Hollywood does n't work with imagination , they rehash the same old shite over and over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, Hollywood doesn't work with imagination, they rehash the same old shite over and over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730890</id>
	<title>How about Space 1999</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263213480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe now it could be renamed to Space 2099, but i loved that show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe now it could be renamed to Space 2099 , but i loved that show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe now it could be renamed to Space 2099, but i loved that show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726832</id>
	<title>SciFi?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I read OMNI magazine in the 70's, The handle 'SciFi 'was considered gauche. The correct term was SF...</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read OMNI magazine in the 70 's , The handle 'SciFi 'was considered gauche .
The correct term was SF.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read OMNI magazine in the 70's, The handle 'SciFi 'was considered gauche.
The correct term was SF...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727386</id>
	<title>Better Off Ted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263243180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may not be Sci-Fi, but it's a good show. Last episode even had a wink at Dr.Who, with a Dalek at the back of a room.</p><p>And yet, there's talk about ABC cancelling it. After making next to no promotion for it, giving it a bad time slot, etc.</p><p>So I say forget about it. If a show requires any amount of brain power, the american networks will cancel it and replace it with a new singing/cooking/dancing/whatever so-called reality show. Like it or not, there's a lot of idiots out there and they're now the biggest marketshare.</p><p>The best recent example would be the SyFy network. Only a fucking moron would write Sci-Fi like that. It's not syence fyction for crying out loud. And they're supposed to be the network for science-fiction shows.</p><p>Cue "Idiocracy" comments in 3, 2, 1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not be Sci-Fi , but it 's a good show .
Last episode even had a wink at Dr.Who , with a Dalek at the back of a room.And yet , there 's talk about ABC cancelling it .
After making next to no promotion for it , giving it a bad time slot , etc.So I say forget about it .
If a show requires any amount of brain power , the american networks will cancel it and replace it with a new singing/cooking/dancing/whatever so-called reality show .
Like it or not , there 's a lot of idiots out there and they 're now the biggest marketshare.The best recent example would be the SyFy network .
Only a fucking moron would write Sci-Fi like that .
It 's not syence fyction for crying out loud .
And they 're supposed to be the network for science-fiction shows.Cue " Idiocracy " comments in 3 , 2 , 1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not be Sci-Fi, but it's a good show.
Last episode even had a wink at Dr.Who, with a Dalek at the back of a room.And yet, there's talk about ABC cancelling it.
After making next to no promotion for it, giving it a bad time slot, etc.So I say forget about it.
If a show requires any amount of brain power, the american networks will cancel it and replace it with a new singing/cooking/dancing/whatever so-called reality show.
Like it or not, there's a lot of idiots out there and they're now the biggest marketshare.The best recent example would be the SyFy network.
Only a fucking moron would write Sci-Fi like that.
It's not syence fyction for crying out loud.
And they're supposed to be the network for science-fiction shows.Cue "Idiocracy" comments in 3, 2, 1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728216</id>
	<title>Re:There is only one worthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263202740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Far Out Space Nuts</i> <br> <br>I said LUNCH, not LAUNCH! Awesome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Far Out Space Nuts I said LUNCH , not LAUNCH !
Awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far Out Space Nuts  I said LUNCH, not LAUNCH!
Awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730842</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263213240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been done. The reboot was called "Firefly".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been done .
The reboot was called " Firefly " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been done.
The reboot was called "Firefly".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728882</id>
	<title>none?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263205080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about no more reboots... Star Trek was really watered down in the new reboot movie, and it was just another lame summer action movie, with Star Trek thrown into the mix. Wheres my 2371? I want to see the future of the Federation and other powers, not some past alternate universe crap where a lame wannabe kirk drives an ancient earth car through some desert. No more reboots!!! Sequals, spinoffs, thats fine, make a Star Trek comedy based on a Ferengi family or a Romulan spy, just no reboots!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about no more reboots... Star Trek was really watered down in the new reboot movie , and it was just another lame summer action movie , with Star Trek thrown into the mix .
Wheres my 2371 ?
I want to see the future of the Federation and other powers , not some past alternate universe crap where a lame wannabe kirk drives an ancient earth car through some desert .
No more reboots ! ! !
Sequals , spinoffs , thats fine , make a Star Trek comedy based on a Ferengi family or a Romulan spy , just no reboots !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about no more reboots... Star Trek was really watered down in the new reboot movie, and it was just another lame summer action movie, with Star Trek thrown into the mix.
Wheres my 2371?
I want to see the future of the Federation and other powers, not some past alternate universe crap where a lame wannabe kirk drives an ancient earth car through some desert.
No more reboots!!!
Sequals, spinoffs, thats fine, make a Star Trek comedy based on a Ferengi family or a Romulan spy, just no reboots!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727094</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1263242460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632\_series" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632\_series</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>1632 series aka 'ring of fire' series.  Only vaguely scifi but could make a nice drama / action / adventure / steampunkish / special effects showcase type of movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632 \ _series [ wikipedia.org ] 1632 series aka 'ring of fire ' series .
Only vaguely scifi but could make a nice drama / action / adventure / steampunkish / special effects showcase type of movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632\_series [wikipedia.org]1632 series aka 'ring of fire' series.
Only vaguely scifi but could make a nice drama / action / adventure / steampunkish / special effects showcase type of movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</id>
	<title>Blakes 7</title>
	<author>WED Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1263240780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blake's 7. I was in the USAF for the final 2 series. Incredible characters and stories. Horrible sets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blake 's 7 .
I was in the USAF for the final 2 series .
Incredible characters and stories .
Horrible sets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blake's 7.
I was in the USAF for the final 2 series.
Incredible characters and stories.
Horrible sets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729650</id>
	<title>Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263207840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't South Park already do this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't South Park already do this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't South Park already do this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731290</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Etrias</author>
	<datestamp>1263215880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's because <a href="http://www.cracked.com/article/166\_5-reasons-it-sucks-being-joss-whedon-fan/" title="cracked.com">Joss Whedon hates you</a> [cracked.com].  Although I do find it absolutely hilarious that I find Whedon fans defend the offing of both Book and Wash in the movie when one would have served but both seem ridiculous.<br> <br>

I'm not selling the writing short.  I find it sloppy writing when you have to kill off more than one "major" character to get a visceral reaction from your audience.  Just because it's Mal's story doesn't mean as a storyteller that you should have carte blanche to shit on the other characters.  Give them a heroic send off if you're going to off them.  My theory on this?  Whedon knew this was the end of Firefly and thought fuck it, I'm going to kill my baby.<br> <br>

And, minor point here, why the hell did Mr. Universe get buried at the same place as Book and Wash?  The guy wasn't in the TV series, has a few minutes of screen time in the movie and gets the nice plot at the end with two of the show mainstays?  Who'd he blow to get that to work for him?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because Joss Whedon hates you [ cracked.com ] .
Although I do find it absolutely hilarious that I find Whedon fans defend the offing of both Book and Wash in the movie when one would have served but both seem ridiculous .
I 'm not selling the writing short .
I find it sloppy writing when you have to kill off more than one " major " character to get a visceral reaction from your audience .
Just because it 's Mal 's story does n't mean as a storyteller that you should have carte blanche to shit on the other characters .
Give them a heroic send off if you 're going to off them .
My theory on this ?
Whedon knew this was the end of Firefly and thought fuck it , I 'm going to kill my baby .
And , minor point here , why the hell did Mr. Universe get buried at the same place as Book and Wash ?
The guy was n't in the TV series , has a few minutes of screen time in the movie and gets the nice plot at the end with two of the show mainstays ?
Who 'd he blow to get that to work for him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because Joss Whedon hates you [cracked.com].
Although I do find it absolutely hilarious that I find Whedon fans defend the offing of both Book and Wash in the movie when one would have served but both seem ridiculous.
I'm not selling the writing short.
I find it sloppy writing when you have to kill off more than one "major" character to get a visceral reaction from your audience.
Just because it's Mal's story doesn't mean as a storyteller that you should have carte blanche to shit on the other characters.
Give them a heroic send off if you're going to off them.
My theory on this?
Whedon knew this was the end of Firefly and thought fuck it, I'm going to kill my baby.
And, minor point here, why the hell did Mr. Universe get buried at the same place as Book and Wash?
The guy wasn't in the TV series, has a few minutes of screen time in the movie and gets the nice plot at the end with two of the show mainstays?
Who'd he blow to get that to work for him?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733704</id>
	<title>Re:Sliders</title>
	<author>RyoShin</author>
	<datestamp>1263234780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A big part of almost every episode involved the Sliders changing the world they landed on to some huge extent.  I've always wondered how the worlds turned out afterward; it would be nice to have a series that didn't necessarily reboot Sliders, but followed a second group of Sliders that got stuck following their footsteps.  They have to deal with any problems caused by the original Sliders, as well as exploring more the planets that we only got glimpses of (at the beggining or end of an episode).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A big part of almost every episode involved the Sliders changing the world they landed on to some huge extent .
I 've always wondered how the worlds turned out afterward ; it would be nice to have a series that did n't necessarily reboot Sliders , but followed a second group of Sliders that got stuck following their footsteps .
They have to deal with any problems caused by the original Sliders , as well as exploring more the planets that we only got glimpses of ( at the beggining or end of an episode ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big part of almost every episode involved the Sliders changing the world they landed on to some huge extent.
I've always wondered how the worlds turned out afterward; it would be nice to have a series that didn't necessarily reboot Sliders, but followed a second group of Sliders that got stuck following their footsteps.
They have to deal with any problems caused by the original Sliders, as well as exploring more the planets that we only got glimpses of (at the beggining or end of an episode).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727566</id>
	<title>Re:SciFi?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263200460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It just gets worse with time, doesn't it? Now they've got "SyFy". What's wrong with just calling it "science fiction"? Are people so lazy these days they can't make a few more keystrokes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just gets worse with time , does n't it ?
Now they 've got " SyFy " .
What 's wrong with just calling it " science fiction " ?
Are people so lazy these days they ca n't make a few more keystrokes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just gets worse with time, doesn't it?
Now they've got "SyFy".
What's wrong with just calling it "science fiction"?
Are people so lazy these days they can't make a few more keystrokes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729750</id>
	<title>NONE</title>
	<author>Sleepy</author>
	<datestamp>1263208260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to remember folks - yesterday's SciFi was made FOR sci-fi fans.<br>How much of today's sci-fi - series or movies - can really claim the same?<br>Compromises are made to attract mainstream, non-scifi audiences and to satisfy Scientology investors and really bad, closet Scientology actors (*cough* Wil Smith *cough*).</p><p>Half of the appeal of old sci-fi was lack of (imposed, or self-imposed) censorship.<br>If you made something fantastic and  sufficiently intellectual, fewer mainstream people would pay attention, and you could get away with ANYTHING.<br>You could question the morality of the established culture, or at least hold a mirror up to it.. and you would not be blacklisted as a communist or subversive.<br>(For the most part anyways.. the rest of Hollywood suffered, but sci-fi escaped a lot of that treatment).</p><p>Twilight Zone TOS, Outer Limits, Start Trek TOS, Logan's Run, and Planet of The Apes all dealt with "human" issues like slavery, race relations, apartheid, the Cold War, resource depletion, "settling" on occupied land uninvited, feminism, the needs of the one vs. the needs of the many.</p><p>Not that it was perfect - Gene Roddenberry faced tons of network pressure for his parables about the Cold War, using "Klingons" and "Romulans" as proxies for Soviets and Chinese. You just could not make a show that dealt with these issues in a modern context, period.</p><p>I will admit that Battlestar Galactica was a well-done reboot, especially towards the end. I watched some sci-fi friends shift uncomfortable about some of the issues raised, like genocide and torture of prisoners and the effects that has on all parties.</p><p>(Mind you, the "kill them all" type considered this an example of the "liberal elite disrespecting the US military" by showcasing the rape of Six so soon after organized rape and torture at Abu Ghraib, etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to remember folks - yesterday 's SciFi was made FOR sci-fi fans.How much of today 's sci-fi - series or movies - can really claim the same ? Compromises are made to attract mainstream , non-scifi audiences and to satisfy Scientology investors and really bad , closet Scientology actors ( * cough * Wil Smith * cough * ) .Half of the appeal of old sci-fi was lack of ( imposed , or self-imposed ) censorship.If you made something fantastic and sufficiently intellectual , fewer mainstream people would pay attention , and you could get away with ANYTHING.You could question the morality of the established culture , or at least hold a mirror up to it.. and you would not be blacklisted as a communist or subversive .
( For the most part anyways.. the rest of Hollywood suffered , but sci-fi escaped a lot of that treatment ) .Twilight Zone TOS , Outer Limits , Start Trek TOS , Logan 's Run , and Planet of The Apes all dealt with " human " issues like slavery , race relations , apartheid , the Cold War , resource depletion , " settling " on occupied land uninvited , feminism , the needs of the one vs. the needs of the many.Not that it was perfect - Gene Roddenberry faced tons of network pressure for his parables about the Cold War , using " Klingons " and " Romulans " as proxies for Soviets and Chinese .
You just could not make a show that dealt with these issues in a modern context , period.I will admit that Battlestar Galactica was a well-done reboot , especially towards the end .
I watched some sci-fi friends shift uncomfortable about some of the issues raised , like genocide and torture of prisoners and the effects that has on all parties .
( Mind you , the " kill them all " type considered this an example of the " liberal elite disrespecting the US military " by showcasing the rape of Six so soon after organized rape and torture at Abu Ghraib , etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to remember folks - yesterday's SciFi was made FOR sci-fi fans.How much of today's sci-fi - series or movies - can really claim the same?Compromises are made to attract mainstream, non-scifi audiences and to satisfy Scientology investors and really bad, closet Scientology actors (*cough* Wil Smith *cough*).Half of the appeal of old sci-fi was lack of (imposed, or self-imposed) censorship.If you made something fantastic and  sufficiently intellectual, fewer mainstream people would pay attention, and you could get away with ANYTHING.You could question the morality of the established culture, or at least hold a mirror up to it.. and you would not be blacklisted as a communist or subversive.
(For the most part anyways.. the rest of Hollywood suffered, but sci-fi escaped a lot of that treatment).Twilight Zone TOS, Outer Limits, Start Trek TOS, Logan's Run, and Planet of The Apes all dealt with "human" issues like slavery, race relations, apartheid, the Cold War, resource depletion, "settling" on occupied land uninvited, feminism, the needs of the one vs. the needs of the many.Not that it was perfect - Gene Roddenberry faced tons of network pressure for his parables about the Cold War, using "Klingons" and "Romulans" as proxies for Soviets and Chinese.
You just could not make a show that dealt with these issues in a modern context, period.I will admit that Battlestar Galactica was a well-done reboot, especially towards the end.
I watched some sci-fi friends shift uncomfortable about some of the issues raised, like genocide and torture of prisoners and the effects that has on all parties.
(Mind you, the "kill them all" type considered this an example of the "liberal elite disrespecting the US military" by showcasing the rape of Six so soon after organized rape and torture at Abu Ghraib, etc)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727480</id>
	<title>Re:Misfits of Science</title>
	<author>Coltman</author>
	<datestamp>1263243420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I have to say Thank you. When I was a kid I caught an episode of this show, and until now wondered what the name of it was.</p><p>Thank you. Finally, I am sure I can find a torrent of this and watch it.</p><p>Colt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I have to say Thank you .
When I was a kid I caught an episode of this show , and until now wondered what the name of it was.Thank you .
Finally , I am sure I can find a torrent of this and watch it.Colt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I have to say Thank you.
When I was a kid I caught an episode of this show, and until now wondered what the name of it was.Thank you.
Finally, I am sure I can find a torrent of this and watch it.Colt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741694</id>
	<title>Space 1999</title>
	<author>Deth4U</author>
	<datestamp>1263328860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was an awesome show in it's time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was an awesome show in it 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was an awesome show in it's time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730438</id>
	<title>I agree with most of this</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1263211200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I would really like to see the  definitive  version of the Dune saga  done right</i>

</p><p>Hell yeah.  I'll make your wish come true too if I ever win the lottery.  I'm serious.

</p><p> <i>The Dune saga really deserves better treatment than it has received at the hands of previous studios and directors.</i>

</p><p>Again, hell yeah and amen.

</p><p> <i>IMHO, either James Cameron or Steve Jackson would be good choices to direct, but others may have different opinions.</i>

</p><p>Here is where we differ.  Steve Jackson?  No fscking way.  Don't get me wrong - I liked his LOTR.  It looked right, and had scenes that were 100\% canon.  But he made too many "my story ideas are better" changes to the storyline.  It's why nobody has gotten Dune right.

</p><p>These stories (LOTR, Dune) are <i>finely tuned masterpieces.</i>  You can't simply swap out part of it with your own ideas and have them work.  Here's an example:

</p><p>Elrond showing up and giving Aragorn the sword halfway through the journey.  "Hey thanks you bastard if you were committed to walking all this way we sure could have used your @\%@\%# help with the Balrog.  Thanks for the sword though.  I've really been needing a good sword these last six freaking months."

</p><p>You just can't drop in your own ideas into the story and have them work.  So in the spirit of that I would do NO SUCH THING to my hypothetical treatment of Dune.  If it's not in the book, it doesn't make it to the screen.  So I'd say that Peter Jackson is probably the exact wrong person to make Dune.  YMMV of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would really like to see the definitive version of the Dune saga done right Hell yeah .
I 'll make your wish come true too if I ever win the lottery .
I 'm serious .
The Dune saga really deserves better treatment than it has received at the hands of previous studios and directors .
Again , hell yeah and amen .
IMHO , either James Cameron or Steve Jackson would be good choices to direct , but others may have different opinions .
Here is where we differ .
Steve Jackson ?
No fscking way .
Do n't get me wrong - I liked his LOTR .
It looked right , and had scenes that were 100 \ % canon .
But he made too many " my story ideas are better " changes to the storyline .
It 's why nobody has gotten Dune right .
These stories ( LOTR , Dune ) are finely tuned masterpieces .
You ca n't simply swap out part of it with your own ideas and have them work .
Here 's an example : Elrond showing up and giving Aragorn the sword halfway through the journey .
" Hey thanks you bastard if you were committed to walking all this way we sure could have used your @ \ % @ \ % # help with the Balrog .
Thanks for the sword though .
I 've really been needing a good sword these last six freaking months .
" You just ca n't drop in your own ideas into the story and have them work .
So in the spirit of that I would do NO SUCH THING to my hypothetical treatment of Dune .
If it 's not in the book , it does n't make it to the screen .
So I 'd say that Peter Jackson is probably the exact wrong person to make Dune .
YMMV of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I would really like to see the  definitive  version of the Dune saga  done right

Hell yeah.
I'll make your wish come true too if I ever win the lottery.
I'm serious.
The Dune saga really deserves better treatment than it has received at the hands of previous studios and directors.
Again, hell yeah and amen.
IMHO, either James Cameron or Steve Jackson would be good choices to direct, but others may have different opinions.
Here is where we differ.
Steve Jackson?
No fscking way.
Don't get me wrong - I liked his LOTR.
It looked right, and had scenes that were 100\% canon.
But he made too many "my story ideas are better" changes to the storyline.
It's why nobody has gotten Dune right.
These stories (LOTR, Dune) are finely tuned masterpieces.
You can't simply swap out part of it with your own ideas and have them work.
Here's an example:

Elrond showing up and giving Aragorn the sword halfway through the journey.
"Hey thanks you bastard if you were committed to walking all this way we sure could have used your @\%@\%# help with the Balrog.
Thanks for the sword though.
I've really been needing a good sword these last six freaking months.
"

You just can't drop in your own ideas into the story and have them work.
So in the spirit of that I would do NO SUCH THING to my hypothetical treatment of Dune.
If it's not in the book, it doesn't make it to the screen.
So I'd say that Peter Jackson is probably the exact wrong person to make Dune.
YMMV of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727012</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1263242100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to see <i>Last and First Men</i> and <i>Star Maker</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to see Last and First Men and Star Maker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to see Last and First Men and Star Maker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727524</id>
	<title>Nothing</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1263200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will make few, very few exceptions for good shows/movies whose ideas need revisited. Star Trek did not need a reboot. Batman desperately needed one since he still remained an interesting character and needed divorced from the Schumaker mess. Bond had gotten pretty stale and silly and hadn't been any good for a decade or two. Casino Royale was a real shot in the arm. I've been enjoying the new Dr. Who series for the past few years.</p><p>But as far as your traditional scifi goes, make a new goddamn show. You're allowed to show your roots but make it something new. Babylon 5 was new. It was great. JMS hasn't been able to do anything else with it since. Let the show rest in well-deserved peace.</p><p>Firefly came out of nowhere. The basic premise was easy enough to elevator pitch. "Hey, you know Han Solo and Chewie? Ever wonder what kind of stuff they were doing before they met Ben and Luke?" But Firefly didn't just look like a rehash of Star Wars, it was a brand new universe with new ideas and clever twists on old ones.</p><p>I will go so far as to accept new stories in established universes. The Japanese tend to do this like with Gundam. Same robots, same sides, but different wars and different characters. Some of these are side stories, some are in the main continuity, they're only united by the Gundam bits. Star Trek went this way but has sucked so hard for so long I just can't be arsed to care anymore. Babylon 5's follow-on projects have had hard luck and keeping up at it only risks pushing it to Star Trek territory.</p><p>Put me squarely in the "do something new" camp. Show me something I haven't seen before. If you do something that's been seen before, put a twist on it that makes it fresh. If I wanted to see the same shit I've seen before I've got Netflix and a DVD player. I can watch the old ones again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will make few , very few exceptions for good shows/movies whose ideas need revisited .
Star Trek did not need a reboot .
Batman desperately needed one since he still remained an interesting character and needed divorced from the Schumaker mess .
Bond had gotten pretty stale and silly and had n't been any good for a decade or two .
Casino Royale was a real shot in the arm .
I 've been enjoying the new Dr. Who series for the past few years.But as far as your traditional scifi goes , make a new goddamn show .
You 're allowed to show your roots but make it something new .
Babylon 5 was new .
It was great .
JMS has n't been able to do anything else with it since .
Let the show rest in well-deserved peace.Firefly came out of nowhere .
The basic premise was easy enough to elevator pitch .
" Hey , you know Han Solo and Chewie ?
Ever wonder what kind of stuff they were doing before they met Ben and Luke ?
" But Firefly did n't just look like a rehash of Star Wars , it was a brand new universe with new ideas and clever twists on old ones.I will go so far as to accept new stories in established universes .
The Japanese tend to do this like with Gundam .
Same robots , same sides , but different wars and different characters .
Some of these are side stories , some are in the main continuity , they 're only united by the Gundam bits .
Star Trek went this way but has sucked so hard for so long I just ca n't be arsed to care anymore .
Babylon 5 's follow-on projects have had hard luck and keeping up at it only risks pushing it to Star Trek territory.Put me squarely in the " do something new " camp .
Show me something I have n't seen before .
If you do something that 's been seen before , put a twist on it that makes it fresh .
If I wanted to see the same shit I 've seen before I 've got Netflix and a DVD player .
I can watch the old ones again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will make few, very few exceptions for good shows/movies whose ideas need revisited.
Star Trek did not need a reboot.
Batman desperately needed one since he still remained an interesting character and needed divorced from the Schumaker mess.
Bond had gotten pretty stale and silly and hadn't been any good for a decade or two.
Casino Royale was a real shot in the arm.
I've been enjoying the new Dr. Who series for the past few years.But as far as your traditional scifi goes, make a new goddamn show.
You're allowed to show your roots but make it something new.
Babylon 5 was new.
It was great.
JMS hasn't been able to do anything else with it since.
Let the show rest in well-deserved peace.Firefly came out of nowhere.
The basic premise was easy enough to elevator pitch.
"Hey, you know Han Solo and Chewie?
Ever wonder what kind of stuff they were doing before they met Ben and Luke?
" But Firefly didn't just look like a rehash of Star Wars, it was a brand new universe with new ideas and clever twists on old ones.I will go so far as to accept new stories in established universes.
The Japanese tend to do this like with Gundam.
Same robots, same sides, but different wars and different characters.
Some of these are side stories, some are in the main continuity, they're only united by the Gundam bits.
Star Trek went this way but has sucked so hard for so long I just can't be arsed to care anymore.
Babylon 5's follow-on projects have had hard luck and keeping up at it only risks pushing it to Star Trek territory.Put me squarely in the "do something new" camp.
Show me something I haven't seen before.
If you do something that's been seen before, put a twist on it that makes it fresh.
If I wanted to see the same shit I've seen before I've got Netflix and a DVD player.
I can watch the old ones again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728520</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would LOVE to see Aral, Cordelia, and Miles Vorkosigan on screen.  Cast Angelina Joli with appropriate wig as Cordelia and let her kick ass in Shards of Honor and Barrayar.  Make Civil Campagn into a movie...it's a romantic comedy that appeals to sf fans and their wives.  Memory is a suspense detective story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would LOVE to see Aral , Cordelia , and Miles Vorkosigan on screen .
Cast Angelina Joli with appropriate wig as Cordelia and let her kick ass in Shards of Honor and Barrayar .
Make Civil Campagn into a movie...it 's a romantic comedy that appeals to sf fans and their wives .
Memory is a suspense detective story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would LOVE to see Aral, Cordelia, and Miles Vorkosigan on screen.
Cast Angelina Joli with appropriate wig as Cordelia and let her kick ass in Shards of Honor and Barrayar.
Make Civil Campagn into a movie...it's a romantic comedy that appeals to sf fans and their wives.
Memory is a suspense detective story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734304</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>1u3hr</author>
	<datestamp>1263329820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Perhaps because stargate has a properly defined universe while firefly's universe was a mess. Cowboys in space, all the planets orbiting the same star etc etc.</i> <p>
Both are fairly unlikely, but "the 'verse" was conceived as a planetary system where lots of small planets and moons had been terraformed. And one big plus: no magical FTL, transporters, gates, or such needed to get from planet to planet.</p><p>
As for SG, I liked the movie, and watched a few episodes of series 1. I can't say if it was consistent, but it was pretty magical, and tedious. Obviously YMMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps because stargate has a properly defined universe while firefly 's universe was a mess .
Cowboys in space , all the planets orbiting the same star etc etc .
Both are fairly unlikely , but " the 'verse " was conceived as a planetary system where lots of small planets and moons had been terraformed .
And one big plus : no magical FTL , transporters , gates , or such needed to get from planet to planet .
As for SG , I liked the movie , and watched a few episodes of series 1 .
I ca n't say if it was consistent , but it was pretty magical , and tedious .
Obviously YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps because stargate has a properly defined universe while firefly's universe was a mess.
Cowboys in space, all the planets orbiting the same star etc etc.
Both are fairly unlikely, but "the 'verse" was conceived as a planetary system where lots of small planets and moons had been terraformed.
And one big plus: no magical FTL, transporters, gates, or such needed to get from planet to planet.
As for SG, I liked the movie, and watched a few episodes of series 1.
I can't say if it was consistent, but it was pretty magical, and tedious.
Obviously YMMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729366</id>
	<title>Re:UFO - Wikipedia Link</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1263206760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I forgot to include a link to a description of the series in my original post</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO\_(TV\_series)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Reading it, it seems a remake is already in the works and it will be done in England. I hope it actually gets completed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I forgot to include a link to a description of the series in my original posthttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO \ _ ( TV \ _series ) [ wikipedia.org ] Reading it , it seems a remake is already in the works and it will be done in England .
I hope it actually gets completed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I forgot to include a link to a description of the series in my original posthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO\_(TV\_series) [wikipedia.org]Reading it, it seems a remake is already in the works and it will be done in England.
I hope it actually gets completed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727984</id>
	<title>Star Wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we please have a grown up version of Star Wars? I love the idea of Star Wars so much but the official material is garbage (lots of cool fan fiction). I think a "Batman Begins/Dark Knight" grown up approach to Star Wars would reboot it into wickedness...</p><p>Make the Sith really fucking evil...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please have a grown up version of Star Wars ?
I love the idea of Star Wars so much but the official material is garbage ( lots of cool fan fiction ) .
I think a " Batman Begins/Dark Knight " grown up approach to Star Wars would reboot it into wickedness...Make the Sith really fucking evil.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please have a grown up version of Star Wars?
I love the idea of Star Wars so much but the official material is garbage (lots of cool fan fiction).
I think a "Batman Begins/Dark Knight" grown up approach to Star Wars would reboot it into wickedness...Make the Sith really fucking evil...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730748</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263212880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please leave Blakes 7 alone. The original is as good as it gets; remakes will suck.
</p><p>
No more reboots KTHX. I don't need to see a remake of Citizen Kane or Dr Strangelove
because the originals still exist and are still watchable. Reboots and remakes are just
Hollywood reducing its risk dollar by going with something they already know was popular.
Get some new ideas for a change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please leave Blakes 7 alone .
The original is as good as it gets ; remakes will suck .
No more reboots KTHX .
I do n't need to see a remake of Citizen Kane or Dr Strangelove because the originals still exist and are still watchable .
Reboots and remakes are just Hollywood reducing its risk dollar by going with something they already know was popular .
Get some new ideas for a change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please leave Blakes 7 alone.
The original is as good as it gets; remakes will suck.
No more reboots KTHX.
I don't need to see a remake of Citizen Kane or Dr Strangelove
because the originals still exist and are still watchable.
Reboots and remakes are just
Hollywood reducing its risk dollar by going with something they already know was popular.
Get some new ideas for a change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727714</id>
	<title>Re:Misfits of Science</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1263201000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Heroes would be a reboot of The Tomorrow People.</p><p>except with blood, and violence and a time traveling otaku.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Heroes would be a reboot of The Tomorrow People.except with blood , and violence and a time traveling otaku .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Heroes would be a reboot of The Tomorrow People.except with blood, and violence and a time traveling otaku.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726808</id>
	<title>How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids?</title>
	<author>greenguy</author>
	<datestamp>1263241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to see that done with darker, grittier feel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see that done with darker , grittier feel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see that done with darker, grittier feel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735052</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263296880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "secret" to "Twilight Zone" was the writing. It was rooted in the times and in the issues. That can be done again. A producer with even a nodding acquaintance with Rod Serling's vision and the resources to realize it could re-vitalize the "Twilight Zone" franchise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " secret " to " Twilight Zone " was the writing .
It was rooted in the times and in the issues .
That can be done again .
A producer with even a nodding acquaintance with Rod Serling 's vision and the resources to realize it could re-vitalize the " Twilight Zone " franchise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "secret" to "Twilight Zone" was the writing.
It was rooted in the times and in the issues.
That can be done again.
A producer with even a nodding acquaintance with Rod Serling's vision and the resources to realize it could re-vitalize the "Twilight Zone" franchise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730072</id>
	<title>Heinlein novel again relevant today</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1263209520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I won't bother wishing that "Starship Troopers" could be re-made correctly with the combat suits and the "Heinlein was Fascist" commentary from Paul Verhoven removed - too late now.</p><p>The movie of his other novel that made for great movie material (lots of action and icky scares), "The Puppet Masters" was made on a tight budget with unknowns (save Donald Sutherland in a supporting role) is mostly forgotten already.   Among other misses, it failed to bring out the cold-war paranoia that the guy next to you on the sidewalk could be the Enemy about to enslave your brain and steal your body.</p><p>A remake today could transfer that to War On Terror paranoia: imagine scenes of everybody lining up for a TSA-type full-body scan (and random strip search)...not to get on an airplane, but to go anywhere, especially a movie theatre.   Total Surveillance state justified by the War on Aliens.</p><p>One of the best-loved things about the original Star Trek, and most-praised about the BSG reboot, was the sly (or, sometimes, blunt) commentary on issues of the day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't bother wishing that " Starship Troopers " could be re-made correctly with the combat suits and the " Heinlein was Fascist " commentary from Paul Verhoven removed - too late now.The movie of his other novel that made for great movie material ( lots of action and icky scares ) , " The Puppet Masters " was made on a tight budget with unknowns ( save Donald Sutherland in a supporting role ) is mostly forgotten already .
Among other misses , it failed to bring out the cold-war paranoia that the guy next to you on the sidewalk could be the Enemy about to enslave your brain and steal your body.A remake today could transfer that to War On Terror paranoia : imagine scenes of everybody lining up for a TSA-type full-body scan ( and random strip search ) ...not to get on an airplane , but to go anywhere , especially a movie theatre .
Total Surveillance state justified by the War on Aliens.One of the best-loved things about the original Star Trek , and most-praised about the BSG reboot , was the sly ( or , sometimes , blunt ) commentary on issues of the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't bother wishing that "Starship Troopers" could be re-made correctly with the combat suits and the "Heinlein was Fascist" commentary from Paul Verhoven removed - too late now.The movie of his other novel that made for great movie material (lots of action and icky scares), "The Puppet Masters" was made on a tight budget with unknowns (save Donald Sutherland in a supporting role) is mostly forgotten already.
Among other misses, it failed to bring out the cold-war paranoia that the guy next to you on the sidewalk could be the Enemy about to enslave your brain and steal your body.A remake today could transfer that to War On Terror paranoia: imagine scenes of everybody lining up for a TSA-type full-body scan (and random strip search)...not to get on an airplane, but to go anywhere, especially a movie theatre.
Total Surveillance state justified by the War on Aliens.One of the best-loved things about the original Star Trek, and most-praised about the BSG reboot, was the sly (or, sometimes, blunt) commentary on issues of the day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728186</id>
	<title>Re:Silent Running</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263202560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding? The ONLY good thing about that movie was the Douglas Trumbull effects. The plot was retardedly... retarded (launching forests into SPACE?), the acting was passable at best, and the Joan Baez soundtrack wailing hurt my ears. And it's dated horribly.</p><p>Oh, and even the good effects were constantly re-used. (How many times did we see a biodome launched into space from the same angle? 10? More?)</p><p>The ecological message was done much better in, for example, Soylent Green. If that's the part you admire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
The ONLY good thing about that movie was the Douglas Trumbull effects .
The plot was retardedly... retarded ( launching forests into SPACE ?
) , the acting was passable at best , and the Joan Baez soundtrack wailing hurt my ears .
And it 's dated horribly.Oh , and even the good effects were constantly re-used .
( How many times did we see a biodome launched into space from the same angle ?
10 ? More ?
) The ecological message was done much better in , for example , Soylent Green .
If that 's the part you admire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
The ONLY good thing about that movie was the Douglas Trumbull effects.
The plot was retardedly... retarded (launching forests into SPACE?
), the acting was passable at best, and the Joan Baez soundtrack wailing hurt my ears.
And it's dated horribly.Oh, and even the good effects were constantly re-used.
(How many times did we see a biodome launched into space from the same angle?
10? More?
)The ecological message was done much better in, for example, Soylent Green.
If that's the part you admire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735652</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1263303240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Gibson's vision, done well, would be glorious to see.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Blimey, I just found out on IMDb that Neuromancer is in pre-production already! </p><p>
 Much as I love Neuromancer, I think a movie version would <strong>look</strong> oddly old-fashioned if it kept to the representation of cyberspace as a collection of big abstract coloured shapes, rather than the virtual reality of the Matrix or Snow Crash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gibson 's vision , done well , would be glorious to see .
Blimey , I just found out on IMDb that Neuromancer is in pre-production already !
Much as I love Neuromancer , I think a movie version would look oddly old-fashioned if it kept to the representation of cyberspace as a collection of big abstract coloured shapes , rather than the virtual reality of the Matrix or Snow Crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gibson's vision, done well, would be glorious to see.
Blimey, I just found out on IMDb that Neuromancer is in pre-production already!
Much as I love Neuromancer, I think a movie version would look oddly old-fashioned if it kept to the representation of cyberspace as a collection of big abstract coloured shapes, rather than the virtual reality of the Matrix or Snow Crash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735722</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done.</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1263303900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because when your sci-fi series shares the same theory of time travel as a Van Damme movie, that's a hint that your theory is dumb.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
OK, so what's the alternative non-dumb theory of time travel?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because when your sci-fi series shares the same theory of time travel as a Van Damme movie , that 's a hint that your theory is dumb .
OK , so what 's the alternative non-dumb theory of time travel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because when your sci-fi series shares the same theory of time travel as a Van Damme movie, that's a hint that your theory is dumb.
OK, so what's the alternative non-dumb theory of time travel?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730032</id>
	<title>Firefly? (no) Babylon 5? Highlander? Space:1999?</title>
	<author>johnkzin</author>
	<datestamp>1263209400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefly doesn't need to be rebooted.  It was fine the first time around, and it was envisioned just right.  What it needs is not a reboot, it needs a revival/continuance.</p><p>Babylon 5<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the nature of the production "network" messed up the second half of season 4, and ruined season 5 (IMO).  Further, the sequel series was ruined by various other issues (chiefly the network airing it).  It would be interesting to see how JMS would re-do the whole thing if he had the chance.</p><p>Highlander<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there are like 2 or 3 different attempts at a back story, several disconnected movies, 2 different tv series, movies that are based on the series and not the original movie(s)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... it's a huge mess.  I'd be nice to see a story that has a central arc (like B5, where it's known up front and told in a slowly revealed and sophisticated manner... not like BSG, where they made up "the arc"/"the plan" as they went along, and just barely pulled it off), but more importantly, it has a definite continuity that the existing mess lacks.</p><p>Space:1999<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... obviously, they have to change the title. But it was one of my early favorite shows.  I'd love to see what a talented writer could do with it.  Again, I'd want it to be an arc story, that is pre-envisioned, and not made up as they go along.</p><p>The article referenced brings up Buck Rogers.  If they could do it more like the original 1930's, and not like the 1980's, then go for it.</p><p>Dune was already re-done, on the sci-fi/syfy channel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... like Firefly, it doesn't need a reboot right now, it needs a continuance (the rest of the books).</p><p>One other idea: The Six Million Dollar Man.  Only, NOT done by the people who did the reboot of "The Bionic Woman".  That was AWFUL.</p><p>What about that old kids show: Arc 2?  With the vehicle that drives around a post-apocalyptic planet trying to find a way to re-build civilization?  That might do well right now.</p><p>Or the Shazam/Captain Marvel show of the same era.  With or without Isis.</p><p>Oh... and... what about Mad Max/Road Warrior?  I think Mel is too old to pull off a sequel at this point, so why not a fresh look at it.</p><p>Someone mentioned Aliens<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe.   Or even a complete revamp of the Terminator story (and, again, done with forethought, and not "what can we shove into the sequel this time, and pull out of our butts to sort of make it work?").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefly does n't need to be rebooted .
It was fine the first time around , and it was envisioned just right .
What it needs is not a reboot , it needs a revival/continuance.Babylon 5 ... the nature of the production " network " messed up the second half of season 4 , and ruined season 5 ( IMO ) .
Further , the sequel series was ruined by various other issues ( chiefly the network airing it ) .
It would be interesting to see how JMS would re-do the whole thing if he had the chance.Highlander ... there are like 2 or 3 different attempts at a back story , several disconnected movies , 2 different tv series , movies that are based on the series and not the original movie ( s ) .... it 's a huge mess .
I 'd be nice to see a story that has a central arc ( like B5 , where it 's known up front and told in a slowly revealed and sophisticated manner... not like BSG , where they made up " the arc " / " the plan " as they went along , and just barely pulled it off ) , but more importantly , it has a definite continuity that the existing mess lacks.Space : 1999 ... obviously , they have to change the title .
But it was one of my early favorite shows .
I 'd love to see what a talented writer could do with it .
Again , I 'd want it to be an arc story , that is pre-envisioned , and not made up as they go along.The article referenced brings up Buck Rogers .
If they could do it more like the original 1930 's , and not like the 1980 's , then go for it.Dune was already re-done , on the sci-fi/syfy channel ... like Firefly , it does n't need a reboot right now , it needs a continuance ( the rest of the books ) .One other idea : The Six Million Dollar Man .
Only , NOT done by the people who did the reboot of " The Bionic Woman " .
That was AWFUL.What about that old kids show : Arc 2 ?
With the vehicle that drives around a post-apocalyptic planet trying to find a way to re-build civilization ?
That might do well right now.Or the Shazam/Captain Marvel show of the same era .
With or without Isis.Oh... and... what about Mad Max/Road Warrior ?
I think Mel is too old to pull off a sequel at this point , so why not a fresh look at it.Someone mentioned Aliens ... maybe. Or even a complete revamp of the Terminator story ( and , again , done with forethought , and not " what can we shove into the sequel this time , and pull out of our butts to sort of make it work ?
" ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefly doesn't need to be rebooted.
It was fine the first time around, and it was envisioned just right.
What it needs is not a reboot, it needs a revival/continuance.Babylon 5 ... the nature of the production "network" messed up the second half of season 4, and ruined season 5 (IMO).
Further, the sequel series was ruined by various other issues (chiefly the network airing it).
It would be interesting to see how JMS would re-do the whole thing if he had the chance.Highlander ... there are like 2 or 3 different attempts at a back story, several disconnected movies, 2 different tv series, movies that are based on the series and not the original movie(s) .... it's a huge mess.
I'd be nice to see a story that has a central arc (like B5, where it's known up front and told in a slowly revealed and sophisticated manner... not like BSG, where they made up "the arc"/"the plan" as they went along, and just barely pulled it off), but more importantly, it has a definite continuity that the existing mess lacks.Space:1999 ... obviously, they have to change the title.
But it was one of my early favorite shows.
I'd love to see what a talented writer could do with it.
Again, I'd want it to be an arc story, that is pre-envisioned, and not made up as they go along.The article referenced brings up Buck Rogers.
If they could do it more like the original 1930's, and not like the 1980's, then go for it.Dune was already re-done, on the sci-fi/syfy channel ... like Firefly, it doesn't need a reboot right now, it needs a continuance (the rest of the books).One other idea: The Six Million Dollar Man.
Only, NOT done by the people who did the reboot of "The Bionic Woman".
That was AWFUL.What about that old kids show: Arc 2?
With the vehicle that drives around a post-apocalyptic planet trying to find a way to re-build civilization?
That might do well right now.Or the Shazam/Captain Marvel show of the same era.
With or without Isis.Oh... and... what about Mad Max/Road Warrior?
I think Mel is too old to pull off a sequel at this point, so why not a fresh look at it.Someone mentioned Aliens ... maybe.   Or even a complete revamp of the Terminator story (and, again, done with forethought, and not "what can we shove into the sequel this time, and pull out of our butts to sort of make it work?
").</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730596</id>
	<title>The Starlost</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1263211980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will really date me, the series that only lasted less than a year;</p><p>The Starlost</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Starlost" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Starlost</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>It was kinda early 70's funkadelic (groovy baby) but it had a great deal of potential.</p><p>A multi-generation colony ship where the crew dies, leaving only the colonists living in domes. The domes looked exactly like the structures used in the movie Silent Running but much larger.</p><p>The colonists are locked off from each other, hundreds of years have passed and everyone has forgotten that they are on a ship. The ship is damaged and heading for certain destruction.</p><p>There are hundreds of domes, this ship contains the last survivors of the human race. The ship is thousands of miles across. Each dome contains a different culture and some have diverged wildly from what they may have started as.</p><p>Imagine a dome, 50 miles across that is nothing but wacked-out Islam, a Amazonian dome with jungles....</p><p>The potential varieties are amazing. All of this without even leaving the ship.</p><p>Three people have accidentally gotten out of their dome. Think of their culture as 19th century Amish. They gradually</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will really date me , the series that only lasted less than a year ; The Starlosthttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Starlost [ wikipedia.org ] It was kinda early 70 's funkadelic ( groovy baby ) but it had a great deal of potential.A multi-generation colony ship where the crew dies , leaving only the colonists living in domes .
The domes looked exactly like the structures used in the movie Silent Running but much larger.The colonists are locked off from each other , hundreds of years have passed and everyone has forgotten that they are on a ship .
The ship is damaged and heading for certain destruction.There are hundreds of domes , this ship contains the last survivors of the human race .
The ship is thousands of miles across .
Each dome contains a different culture and some have diverged wildly from what they may have started as.Imagine a dome , 50 miles across that is nothing but wacked-out Islam , a Amazonian dome with jungles....The potential varieties are amazing .
All of this without even leaving the ship.Three people have accidentally gotten out of their dome .
Think of their culture as 19th century Amish .
They gradually</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will really date me, the series that only lasted less than a year;The Starlosthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Starlost [wikipedia.org]It was kinda early 70's funkadelic (groovy baby) but it had a great deal of potential.A multi-generation colony ship where the crew dies, leaving only the colonists living in domes.
The domes looked exactly like the structures used in the movie Silent Running but much larger.The colonists are locked off from each other, hundreds of years have passed and everyone has forgotten that they are on a ship.
The ship is damaged and heading for certain destruction.There are hundreds of domes, this ship contains the last survivors of the human race.
The ship is thousands of miles across.
Each dome contains a different culture and some have diverged wildly from what they may have started as.Imagine a dome, 50 miles across that is nothing but wacked-out Islam, a Amazonian dome with jungles....The potential varieties are amazing.
All of this without even leaving the ship.Three people have accidentally gotten out of their dome.
Think of their culture as 19th century Amish.
They gradually</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727540</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe</title>
	<author>bkaul01</author>
	<datestamp>1263200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like District 9?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like District 9 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like District 9?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729414</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1263206880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy answer for why not none:<br>"With luck we'll all meet again in <i>Spaceballs 2: The Search for more Money</i>."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy answer for why not none : " With luck we 'll all meet again in Spaceballs 2 : The Search for more Money .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy answer for why not none:"With luck we'll all meet again in Spaceballs 2: The Search for more Money.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729556</id>
	<title>Lost in Space w/o the absurdity</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1263207540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Lost in Space" could be an edgy serious dramatic series in the Battlestar Galactica vein with very little effort. It has all the ingredients for conflict, tension, interesting ethical questions (e.g. Do you feed your son the fuel or do you save it to get back home?). Rebooted, with a spaceship and crew that gets nastier and dirtier the longer the series continues would be a real ratings getter (What critical system breaks this week? Is Dr. Smith gay and what about his relationship to Will, who may also be gay?). Lots of potential.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lost in Space " could be an edgy serious dramatic series in the Battlestar Galactica vein with very little effort .
It has all the ingredients for conflict , tension , interesting ethical questions ( e.g .
Do you feed your son the fuel or do you save it to get back home ? ) .
Rebooted , with a spaceship and crew that gets nastier and dirtier the longer the series continues would be a real ratings getter ( What critical system breaks this week ?
Is Dr. Smith gay and what about his relationship to Will , who may also be gay ? ) .
Lots of potential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lost in Space" could be an edgy serious dramatic series in the Battlestar Galactica vein with very little effort.
It has all the ingredients for conflict, tension, interesting ethical questions (e.g.
Do you feed your son the fuel or do you save it to get back home?).
Rebooted, with a spaceship and crew that gets nastier and dirtier the longer the series continues would be a real ratings getter (What critical system breaks this week?
Is Dr. Smith gay and what about his relationship to Will, who may also be gay?).
Lots of potential.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729382</id>
	<title>Bring back MST3K</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget rebooting a series, just bring back MST3K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget rebooting a series , just bring back MST3K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget rebooting a series, just bring back MST3K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726904</id>
	<title>Firefly was already a reboot</title>
	<author>name\_already\_taken</author>
	<datestamp>1263241740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefly was already a reboot of Blakes 7 - although perhaps unintentionally, but it was almost as similar to Blakes 7 as RDM's Battlestar was the the original Battlestar.</p><p>Paul Darrow, who played Kerr Avon on Blakes 7 has said that he thought that Firefly was basically an updated version of that show.</p><p>Firefly doesn't need to be rebooted, it just needs to go back into production and be picked up by someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefly was already a reboot of Blakes 7 - although perhaps unintentionally , but it was almost as similar to Blakes 7 as RDM 's Battlestar was the the original Battlestar.Paul Darrow , who played Kerr Avon on Blakes 7 has said that he thought that Firefly was basically an updated version of that show.Firefly does n't need to be rebooted , it just needs to go back into production and be picked up by someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefly was already a reboot of Blakes 7 - although perhaps unintentionally, but it was almost as similar to Blakes 7 as RDM's Battlestar was the the original Battlestar.Paul Darrow, who played Kerr Avon on Blakes 7 has said that he thought that Firefly was basically an updated version of that show.Firefly doesn't need to be rebooted, it just needs to go back into production and be picked up by someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</id>
	<title>Slashdot</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1263243420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... no seriously. Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast. The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity. I'd like to see some more female leading characters... maybe a range of ages and some interesting quirky characters. The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too. Perhaps we could make a new enemy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... no seriously .
Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast .
The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity .
I 'd like to see some more female leading characters... maybe a range of ages and some interesting quirky characters .
The whole " Evil Bill " thing got old too .
Perhaps we could make a new enemy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... no seriously.
Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast.
The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity.
I'd like to see some more female leading characters... maybe a range of ages and some interesting quirky characters.
The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too.
Perhaps we could make a new enemy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727210</id>
	<title>Let's have something original instead</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1263242700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
For God's Sake, can't we have something original?  Reboots are for tired old franchises that have a diminishing following and need a kick in the pants to get going again.  Otherwise, it's a <i>remake</i>, not a reboot, and I'm frakking (reference intended) sick and tired of seeing stories from 30 years ago rehashed yet again.  So just stop it, ok?  We all act like there's only 10 or 12 properties in all of science fiction.
</p><p>
That said, I would have to vote for Firefly returning.  A reboot is absolutely not necessary -- I <i>do not</i> need to see the same stories with different actors -- just continue the story, perhaps as a limited series of 6 to 13 episodes once a year, like they do in England.
</p><p>
I think the problem with Heroes was that they just plain ran out of story.  The first two seasons worked because they had a preplanned story arc.  The last seasons are floundering because they don't.  Rebooting will not help -- it'll just move the problem to a different set of actors.  Let Heroes die and allow us to remember the first seasons -- when it was still good -- with fondness.
</p><p>
In the case of Star Trek and James Bond, a reboot was necessary if we were going to have more of these franchises.  <i>Not</i> having more of these franchises was -- in my opinion -- an acceptable alternative, but the idea of a reboot was interesting, and proved fruitful.  Continuing with increasingly elderly actors and every film trying to be exactly like the previous film was clearly not working.
</p><p>
Here, I'll give you an idea for free that combines a story that hasn't been done yet with a current franchise, making it simultaneously new and marketable.  Make a series from Andre Norton's "Star Rangers", but make it part of Trek canon.  It's thousands of years in the future, and a old limping spaceship from the broken fragments of a federation crash lands on a planet that used to have a high level of technology.  The survivors of the crash attempt to survive from the remnants of old technology found in the dead cities.  At the end of the story, (first season) they stumble upon Star Fleet Headquarters and realize they've found Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For God 's Sake , ca n't we have something original ?
Reboots are for tired old franchises that have a diminishing following and need a kick in the pants to get going again .
Otherwise , it 's a remake , not a reboot , and I 'm frakking ( reference intended ) sick and tired of seeing stories from 30 years ago rehashed yet again .
So just stop it , ok ?
We all act like there 's only 10 or 12 properties in all of science fiction .
That said , I would have to vote for Firefly returning .
A reboot is absolutely not necessary -- I do not need to see the same stories with different actors -- just continue the story , perhaps as a limited series of 6 to 13 episodes once a year , like they do in England .
I think the problem with Heroes was that they just plain ran out of story .
The first two seasons worked because they had a preplanned story arc .
The last seasons are floundering because they do n't .
Rebooting will not help -- it 'll just move the problem to a different set of actors .
Let Heroes die and allow us to remember the first seasons -- when it was still good -- with fondness .
In the case of Star Trek and James Bond , a reboot was necessary if we were going to have more of these franchises .
Not having more of these franchises was -- in my opinion -- an acceptable alternative , but the idea of a reboot was interesting , and proved fruitful .
Continuing with increasingly elderly actors and every film trying to be exactly like the previous film was clearly not working .
Here , I 'll give you an idea for free that combines a story that has n't been done yet with a current franchise , making it simultaneously new and marketable .
Make a series from Andre Norton 's " Star Rangers " , but make it part of Trek canon .
It 's thousands of years in the future , and a old limping spaceship from the broken fragments of a federation crash lands on a planet that used to have a high level of technology .
The survivors of the crash attempt to survive from the remnants of old technology found in the dead cities .
At the end of the story , ( first season ) they stumble upon Star Fleet Headquarters and realize they 've found Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
For God's Sake, can't we have something original?
Reboots are for tired old franchises that have a diminishing following and need a kick in the pants to get going again.
Otherwise, it's a remake, not a reboot, and I'm frakking (reference intended) sick and tired of seeing stories from 30 years ago rehashed yet again.
So just stop it, ok?
We all act like there's only 10 or 12 properties in all of science fiction.
That said, I would have to vote for Firefly returning.
A reboot is absolutely not necessary -- I do not need to see the same stories with different actors -- just continue the story, perhaps as a limited series of 6 to 13 episodes once a year, like they do in England.
I think the problem with Heroes was that they just plain ran out of story.
The first two seasons worked because they had a preplanned story arc.
The last seasons are floundering because they don't.
Rebooting will not help -- it'll just move the problem to a different set of actors.
Let Heroes die and allow us to remember the first seasons -- when it was still good -- with fondness.
In the case of Star Trek and James Bond, a reboot was necessary if we were going to have more of these franchises.
Not having more of these franchises was -- in my opinion -- an acceptable alternative, but the idea of a reboot was interesting, and proved fruitful.
Continuing with increasingly elderly actors and every film trying to be exactly like the previous film was clearly not working.
Here, I'll give you an idea for free that combines a story that hasn't been done yet with a current franchise, making it simultaneously new and marketable.
Make a series from Andre Norton's "Star Rangers", but make it part of Trek canon.
It's thousands of years in the future, and a old limping spaceship from the broken fragments of a federation crash lands on a planet that used to have a high level of technology.
The survivors of the crash attempt to survive from the remnants of old technology found in the dead cities.
At the end of the story, (first season) they stumble upon Star Fleet Headquarters and realize they've found Earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728508</id>
	<title>Earth 2</title>
	<author>edbob</author>
	<datestamp>1263203760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really enjoyed this show and it seemed that it got canceled just when it was starting to get good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really enjoyed this show and it seemed that it got canceled just when it was starting to get good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really enjoyed this show and it seemed that it got canceled just when it was starting to get good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731436</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Labcoat Samurai</author>
	<datestamp>1263216780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except Book died off camera and without ever fulfilling the potential of his storyline (who WAS he?) and Wash died in a stroke of abrupt and extreme bad luck that had to be summarily forgotten because of the imminent threat.  I felt like the only purpose Wash's death served was to make the audience feel like anyone was fair game at that point.  It was effective in that regard, but if that's all there was, I don't think it was worth the trade-off.</p><p>However, you bring up an interesting point, that I had not considered.  I'd have to watch it again to see for sure if that comes across for me too, but I certainly didn't pick that up on a first run.  The fact that he cared about the members of his crew was something I had taken for granted for a long time, and I didn't notice that he had changed appreciably at the end.  I suppose he does allow the Operative to live, despite all he has done, and that could be indicative of a change, though I'm not sure that the death of Wash (or Book) was a critical part of that.  Ultimately, I felt Wash deserved better than he got.  My reaction was less sadness about the death of Wash than irritation with the writers for killing him so off-handedly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Book died off camera and without ever fulfilling the potential of his storyline ( who WAS he ?
) and Wash died in a stroke of abrupt and extreme bad luck that had to be summarily forgotten because of the imminent threat .
I felt like the only purpose Wash 's death served was to make the audience feel like anyone was fair game at that point .
It was effective in that regard , but if that 's all there was , I do n't think it was worth the trade-off.However , you bring up an interesting point , that I had not considered .
I 'd have to watch it again to see for sure if that comes across for me too , but I certainly did n't pick that up on a first run .
The fact that he cared about the members of his crew was something I had taken for granted for a long time , and I did n't notice that he had changed appreciably at the end .
I suppose he does allow the Operative to live , despite all he has done , and that could be indicative of a change , though I 'm not sure that the death of Wash ( or Book ) was a critical part of that .
Ultimately , I felt Wash deserved better than he got .
My reaction was less sadness about the death of Wash than irritation with the writers for killing him so off-handedly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Book died off camera and without ever fulfilling the potential of his storyline (who WAS he?
) and Wash died in a stroke of abrupt and extreme bad luck that had to be summarily forgotten because of the imminent threat.
I felt like the only purpose Wash's death served was to make the audience feel like anyone was fair game at that point.
It was effective in that regard, but if that's all there was, I don't think it was worth the trade-off.However, you bring up an interesting point, that I had not considered.
I'd have to watch it again to see for sure if that comes across for me too, but I certainly didn't pick that up on a first run.
The fact that he cared about the members of his crew was something I had taken for granted for a long time, and I didn't notice that he had changed appreciably at the end.
I suppose he does allow the Operative to live, despite all he has done, and that could be indicative of a change, though I'm not sure that the death of Wash (or Book) was a critical part of that.
Ultimately, I felt Wash deserved better than he got.
My reaction was less sadness about the death of Wash than irritation with the writers for killing him so off-handedly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727574</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1263200520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They also did a new TW series back then. Some of them where great but they kept watering it down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also did a new TW series back then .
Some of them where great but they kept watering it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also did a new TW series back then.
Some of them where great but they kept watering it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729054</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263205740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is suggesting a reimagining  of Alien Nation in response to a request for something original your idea of irony?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is suggesting a reimagining of Alien Nation in response to a request for something original your idea of irony ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is suggesting a reimagining  of Alien Nation in response to a request for something original your idea of irony?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726794</id>
	<title>Silent Running</title>
	<author>jsimon12</author>
	<datestamp>1263241440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hesitate to say it because the original was frankly one of the best Sci-Fi movies of all time but I think the message is still pertaent and as long as they stay true to the original it could be a very good movie to remake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hesitate to say it because the original was frankly one of the best Sci-Fi movies of all time but I think the message is still pertaent and as long as they stay true to the original it could be a very good movie to remake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hesitate to say it because the original was frankly one of the best Sci-Fi movies of all time but I think the message is still pertaent and as long as they stay true to the original it could be a very good movie to remake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30787936</id>
	<title>Space 1999</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263579000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reboot as Space 2199<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reboot as Space 2199 : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reboot as Space 2199 :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727336</id>
	<title>ALF!</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1263243000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it before, but I'll say it again -- the darker re-imagined ALF would be a blockbuster (I'm seeing this version of ALF as a movie, just to be clear).</p><p>We could establish with the big effects piece: the destruction of Melmac.  We could shock the audience right away by killing off Lucky.  Pretty soon it's a hunted man movie -- this year's District 9 -- and away we go!</p><p>We'd do all the big character surprises, too.  Willie would be a female, maybe a hard-drinkin' fighter pilot with a bit of the reckless sex streak.  The nosy old lady next door could be a transvestite (very edgy).  Before the first act is done, ALF is halfway across the country -- a vast break from the original series, I should add -- and has left a trail of broken lives and broken promises behind him.  There would the climactic fight. Willie avenging her dead cat.  Lots of dialogue -- total ripoff of Kill Bill's climax.  And the final blow.  ALF is dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before , but I 'll say it again -- the darker re-imagined ALF would be a blockbuster ( I 'm seeing this version of ALF as a movie , just to be clear ) .We could establish with the big effects piece : the destruction of Melmac .
We could shock the audience right away by killing off Lucky .
Pretty soon it 's a hunted man movie -- this year 's District 9 -- and away we go ! We 'd do all the big character surprises , too .
Willie would be a female , maybe a hard-drinkin ' fighter pilot with a bit of the reckless sex streak .
The nosy old lady next door could be a transvestite ( very edgy ) .
Before the first act is done , ALF is halfway across the country -- a vast break from the original series , I should add -- and has left a trail of broken lives and broken promises behind him .
There would the climactic fight .
Willie avenging her dead cat .
Lots of dialogue -- total ripoff of Kill Bill 's climax .
And the final blow .
ALF is dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before, but I'll say it again -- the darker re-imagined ALF would be a blockbuster (I'm seeing this version of ALF as a movie, just to be clear).We could establish with the big effects piece: the destruction of Melmac.
We could shock the audience right away by killing off Lucky.
Pretty soon it's a hunted man movie -- this year's District 9 -- and away we go!We'd do all the big character surprises, too.
Willie would be a female, maybe a hard-drinkin' fighter pilot with a bit of the reckless sex streak.
The nosy old lady next door could be a transvestite (very edgy).
Before the first act is done, ALF is halfway across the country -- a vast break from the original series, I should add -- and has left a trail of broken lives and broken promises behind him.
There would the climactic fight.
Willie avenging her dead cat.
Lots of dialogue -- total ripoff of Kill Bill's climax.
And the final blow.
ALF is dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731124</id>
	<title>I dream of jeannie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this: I Dream of Jeannie?  with a real serious side. edgy, gritty...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this : I Dream of Jeannie ?
with a real serious side .
edgy , gritty.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this: I Dream of Jeannie?
with a real serious side.
edgy, gritty...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727532</id>
	<title>A couple of Classic Brit Sci-Fi's for a reboot....</title>
	<author>s0litaire</author>
	<datestamp>1263200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>How about "Space1999" &amp; U.F.O. I'd love to see a reboot of those shows.<br><br>It might be a good time for a Reboot of U.F.O. since it's getting the big screen treatment for 2011<br>(Gerry Anderson's got a hand in it so it won't be a disaster like the Thunderbirds movie!!!)<br><br>They have already got "Joshua Jackson" (Fringe) signed on. But there's a push to get "Neal McDonough" (Minority Report) cast as Ed Straker</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " Space1999 " &amp; U.F.O .
I 'd love to see a reboot of those shows.It might be a good time for a Reboot of U.F.O .
since it 's getting the big screen treatment for 2011 ( Gerry Anderson 's got a hand in it so it wo n't be a disaster like the Thunderbirds movie ! ! !
) They have already got " Joshua Jackson " ( Fringe ) signed on .
But there 's a push to get " Neal McDonough " ( Minority Report ) cast as Ed Straker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "Space1999" &amp; U.F.O.
I'd love to see a reboot of those shows.It might be a good time for a Reboot of U.F.O.
since it's getting the big screen treatment for 2011(Gerry Anderson's got a hand in it so it won't be a disaster like the Thunderbirds movie!!!
)They have already got "Joshua Jackson" (Fringe) signed on.
But there's a push to get "Neal McDonough" (Minority Report) cast as Ed Straker</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728610</id>
	<title>The Gap Cycle by Donaldson</title>
	<author>dkragen2006</author>
	<datestamp>1263204120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I'd love to see the Gap Cycle on the big or little screen. Probably too dark for regular TV without destroying the series though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd love to see the Gap Cycle on the big or little screen .
Probably too dark for regular TV without destroying the series though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd love to see the Gap Cycle on the big or little screen.
Probably too dark for regular TV without destroying the series though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729704</id>
	<title>Robotech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One word: Robotech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One word : Robotech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One word: Robotech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729134</id>
	<title>No More Remakes! New stuff based on</title>
	<author>PRB\_Ohio</author>
	<datestamp>1263205980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Heinlein, Asimov, Bova, Clarke, Niven - Hell, just mine the HUGO Award winners!!!

I want a FAITHFUL version of Starship Troopers!!

Tell me what would happen if "I Will Fear No Evil" was made into a HARD 'R' movie?

At least a half dozen stories from the "Expanded Universe" collection could make great films!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heinlein , Asimov , Bova , Clarke , Niven - Hell , just mine the HUGO Award winners ! ! !
I want a FAITHFUL version of Starship Troopers ! !
Tell me what would happen if " I Will Fear No Evil " was made into a HARD 'R ' movie ?
At least a half dozen stories from the " Expanded Universe " collection could make great films !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Heinlein, Asimov, Bova, Clarke, Niven - Hell, just mine the HUGO Award winners!!!
I want a FAITHFUL version of Starship Troopers!!
Tell me what would happen if "I Will Fear No Evil" was made into a HARD 'R' movie?
At least a half dozen stories from the "Expanded Universe" collection could make great films!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729598</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>jabithew</author>
	<datestamp>1263207660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be great to explore the universe of Revelation Space in a series of films, but I can't help but feel it just couldn't live up to his writing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be great to explore the universe of Revelation Space in a series of films , but I ca n't help but feel it just could n't live up to his writing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be great to explore the universe of Revelation Space in a series of films, but I can't help but feel it just couldn't live up to his writing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729374</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263206760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then it ends up like Stargate Universe. With stupid social topics, day-long crying, redneck philosophies, and no sci-fi or tech whatsoever.<br>(Seriously. Avoid SU like the plague. After the first episodes I feel like watching the Star Wars Christmas Special again, just to get excited.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then it ends up like Stargate Universe .
With stupid social topics , day-long crying , redneck philosophies , and no sci-fi or tech whatsoever. ( Seriously .
Avoid SU like the plague .
After the first episodes I feel like watching the Star Wars Christmas Special again , just to get excited .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then it ends up like Stargate Universe.
With stupid social topics, day-long crying, redneck philosophies, and no sci-fi or tech whatsoever.(Seriously.
Avoid SU like the plague.
After the first episodes I feel like watching the Star Wars Christmas Special again, just to get excited.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726992</id>
	<title>Soylent green is people!!!!!!!!!111oneone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263242040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they've been trying also to re-make Logan's Run for some time.. which would be ok I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they 've been trying also to re-make Logan 's Run for some time.. which would be ok I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they've been trying also to re-make Logan's Run for some time.. which would be ok I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730836</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe</title>
	<author>Serious Callers Only</author>
	<datestamp>1263213240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are no more Original Ideas, there are only rehashes of existing ideas, set in places nobody has imagined before.</p></div><p>Oh really? When did that happen? When the very first story was told? Or the second? How many stories are there in your learned opinion?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why I liked Avatar. The plot was a rehash of a couple other movies, done on some alien world.<br>Of course, the geeks who didn't like the movie because it was "too spiritual" or failed on some Physics law or whatever, entirely miss the point.</p></div><p>Or maybe they thought it was trite, vacuous, nonsense dressed up in pretty special effects, which didn't even bother to be internally consistent. Maybe they thought there was no discernible point to the whole spectacle?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want original, stop watching movies, you'll only be disappointed.</p></div><p>2 far superior sci-fi movies came out last year, both of which were pretty original - Moon and District 9. I'm sure you can find some antecedents which are similar in some way on Wikipedia, but not films which combine all of those elements in the same way. If you choose to watch unimaginative tripe like Avatar though, I guess you will remain perpetually unsurprised and can continue to believe that there is nothing that you haven't seen before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no more Original Ideas , there are only rehashes of existing ideas , set in places nobody has imagined before.Oh really ?
When did that happen ?
When the very first story was told ?
Or the second ?
How many stories are there in your learned opinion ? This is why I liked Avatar .
The plot was a rehash of a couple other movies , done on some alien world.Of course , the geeks who did n't like the movie because it was " too spiritual " or failed on some Physics law or whatever , entirely miss the point.Or maybe they thought it was trite , vacuous , nonsense dressed up in pretty special effects , which did n't even bother to be internally consistent .
Maybe they thought there was no discernible point to the whole spectacle ? If you want original , stop watching movies , you 'll only be disappointed.2 far superior sci-fi movies came out last year , both of which were pretty original - Moon and District 9 .
I 'm sure you can find some antecedents which are similar in some way on Wikipedia , but not films which combine all of those elements in the same way .
If you choose to watch unimaginative tripe like Avatar though , I guess you will remain perpetually unsurprised and can continue to believe that there is nothing that you have n't seen before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no more Original Ideas, there are only rehashes of existing ideas, set in places nobody has imagined before.Oh really?
When did that happen?
When the very first story was told?
Or the second?
How many stories are there in your learned opinion?This is why I liked Avatar.
The plot was a rehash of a couple other movies, done on some alien world.Of course, the geeks who didn't like the movie because it was "too spiritual" or failed on some Physics law or whatever, entirely miss the point.Or maybe they thought it was trite, vacuous, nonsense dressed up in pretty special effects, which didn't even bother to be internally consistent.
Maybe they thought there was no discernible point to the whole spectacle?If you want original, stop watching movies, you'll only be disappointed.2 far superior sci-fi movies came out last year, both of which were pretty original - Moon and District 9.
I'm sure you can find some antecedents which are similar in some way on Wikipedia, but not films which combine all of those elements in the same way.
If you choose to watch unimaginative tripe like Avatar though, I guess you will remain perpetually unsurprised and can continue to believe that there is nothing that you haven't seen before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</id>
	<title>How about none?</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1263240900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about none? There's a million* SF ideas out there that have never gone much beyond the printed word. Why do we have to keep rebooting old franchises? How about turning the Vorkosigan saga into a miniseries? Or something by Cory Doctorow or Charlie Stross, if you want to be a little more up-to-the-minute? How about a miniseries based on <i>Hyperion</i>, or <i>A Deepness in the Sky</i>?</p><p>Or even just forget about things that have already been written -- commission Doctorow or Stross (or someone) to create a TV miniseries based on new SF material.</p><p>* Not precisely 1 million.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about none ?
There 's a million * SF ideas out there that have never gone much beyond the printed word .
Why do we have to keep rebooting old franchises ?
How about turning the Vorkosigan saga into a miniseries ?
Or something by Cory Doctorow or Charlie Stross , if you want to be a little more up-to-the-minute ?
How about a miniseries based on Hyperion , or A Deepness in the Sky ? Or even just forget about things that have already been written -- commission Doctorow or Stross ( or someone ) to create a TV miniseries based on new SF material .
* Not precisely 1 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about none?
There's a million* SF ideas out there that have never gone much beyond the printed word.
Why do we have to keep rebooting old franchises?
How about turning the Vorkosigan saga into a miniseries?
Or something by Cory Doctorow or Charlie Stross, if you want to be a little more up-to-the-minute?
How about a miniseries based on Hyperion, or A Deepness in the Sky?Or even just forget about things that have already been written -- commission Doctorow or Stross (or someone) to create a TV miniseries based on new SF material.
* Not precisely 1 million.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726816</id>
	<title>Which /. Submitter should take English lessons?</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1263241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's pretty sad that people still get this wrong. It seems like a script could be written to prevent you from submitting articles when your title has such an ugly mistake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty sad that people still get this wrong .
It seems like a script could be written to prevent you from submitting articles when your title has such an ugly mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty sad that people still get this wrong.
It seems like a script could be written to prevent you from submitting articles when your title has such an ugly mistake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730706</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>CompressedAir</author>
	<datestamp>1263212640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, you are way off. Firefly was primarily a story about a really cool guy who wore Hawaiian shirts, played with plastic dinosaurs, married a total badass wife, made funny (ding!) informative (ding!) and insightful comments (ding!), and occasionally flew the ship.</p><p>It is no wonder that a show without the main character would lose some appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , you are way off .
Firefly was primarily a story about a really cool guy who wore Hawaiian shirts , played with plastic dinosaurs , married a total badass wife , made funny ( ding !
) informative ( ding !
) and insightful comments ( ding !
) , and occasionally flew the ship.It is no wonder that a show without the main character would lose some appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, you are way off.
Firefly was primarily a story about a really cool guy who wore Hawaiian shirts, played with plastic dinosaurs, married a total badass wife, made funny (ding!
) informative (ding!
) and insightful comments (ding!
), and occasionally flew the ship.It is no wonder that a show without the main character would lose some appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727590</id>
	<title>Dune....Definitely Dune</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263200520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would really like to see the <b> <i>definitive</i> </b> version of the <i>Dune</i> saga <b> <i>done right</i> </b>; without the sort of budget and casting constraints that have crippled previous outings (i.e. "the original" which was a David Lynch 80s style film and the SciFi channel remakes which, while better and more ambitious, still suffered from obvious budget constraints). The <i>Dune</i> saga really deserves better treatment than it has received at the hands of previous studios and directors. The success of <i>Avatar</i> has proven the market for high-quality 3D "epic" Science Fiction films and <i>Dune</i> would look really great if it was done in a similar fashion; with the budget and length required to do justice to the story. IMHO, either James Cameron or Steve Jackson would be good choices to direct, but others may have different opinions. If <i>Lord of the Rings</i> can be done well, then so can a sophisticated and high-brow SciFi epic like the <i>Dune</i> saga.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would really like to see the definitive version of the Dune saga done right ; without the sort of budget and casting constraints that have crippled previous outings ( i.e .
" the original " which was a David Lynch 80s style film and the SciFi channel remakes which , while better and more ambitious , still suffered from obvious budget constraints ) .
The Dune saga really deserves better treatment than it has received at the hands of previous studios and directors .
The success of Avatar has proven the market for high-quality 3D " epic " Science Fiction films and Dune would look really great if it was done in a similar fashion ; with the budget and length required to do justice to the story .
IMHO , either James Cameron or Steve Jackson would be good choices to direct , but others may have different opinions .
If Lord of the Rings can be done well , then so can a sophisticated and high-brow SciFi epic like the Dune saga .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would really like to see the  definitive  version of the Dune saga  done right ; without the sort of budget and casting constraints that have crippled previous outings (i.e.
"the original" which was a David Lynch 80s style film and the SciFi channel remakes which, while better and more ambitious, still suffered from obvious budget constraints).
The Dune saga really deserves better treatment than it has received at the hands of previous studios and directors.
The success of Avatar has proven the market for high-quality 3D "epic" Science Fiction films and Dune would look really great if it was done in a similar fashion; with the budget and length required to do justice to the story.
IMHO, either James Cameron or Steve Jackson would be good choices to direct, but others may have different opinions.
If Lord of the Rings can be done well, then so can a sophisticated and high-brow SciFi epic like the Dune saga.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729070</id>
	<title>Re:Blakes 7</title>
	<author>kandela</author>
	<datestamp>1263205740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can watch a show without cringing then it doesn't need a reboot. The only thing I come close to cringing at in B5 is the appallingly small crowds in the crowd scenes, and I did that at the time as well. I'd put B5 in the same category as the X-files, as in 'stands the test of time.' (Note: I do cringe at Scully's suits and the fact that the only time you see her wearing sensible shoes is in glimpses during scenes when she is running or about to run.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can watch a show without cringing then it does n't need a reboot .
The only thing I come close to cringing at in B5 is the appallingly small crowds in the crowd scenes , and I did that at the time as well .
I 'd put B5 in the same category as the X-files , as in 'stands the test of time .
' ( Note : I do cringe at Scully 's suits and the fact that the only time you see her wearing sensible shoes is in glimpses during scenes when she is running or about to run .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can watch a show without cringing then it doesn't need a reboot.
The only thing I come close to cringing at in B5 is the appallingly small crowds in the crowd scenes, and I did that at the time as well.
I'd put B5 in the same category as the X-files, as in 'stands the test of time.
' (Note: I do cringe at Scully's suits and the fact that the only time you see her wearing sensible shoes is in glimpses during scenes when she is running or about to run.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729608</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263207720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.. I like how it's being referred to the era of the "reboot" rather than just a complete lack of creativity and originality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.. I like how it 's being referred to the era of the " reboot " rather than just a complete lack of creativity and originality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.. I like how it's being referred to the era of the "reboot" rather than just a complete lack of creativity and originality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729108</id>
	<title>Re:Three words:</title>
	<author>stephencrane</author>
	<datestamp>1263205860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A Thundarr/Zelazny's Lord of Light crossover!

Thundarr meets his god.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Thundarr/Zelazny 's Lord of Light crossover !
Thundarr meets his god .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Thundarr/Zelazny's Lord of Light crossover!
Thundarr meets his god.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727884</id>
	<title>Cartoons from my childhood</title>
	<author>August26</author>
	<datestamp>1263201540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On a serious note: Star Blazers

<p>On a less than serious note: G-Force</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a serious note : Star Blazers On a less than serious note : G-Force</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a serious note: Star Blazers

On a less than serious note: G-Force</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728950</id>
	<title>Re:Misfits of Science</title>
	<author>stephencrane</author>
	<datestamp>1263205260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a show called 'Misfits' on UK tv right now.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfits\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfits\_(TV\_series)</a> [wikipedia.org]

It's good.  Not exactly Misfits of Science, but in the same area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a show called 'Misfits ' on UK tv right now .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfits \ _ ( TV \ _series ) [ wikipedia.org ] It 's good .
Not exactly Misfits of Science , but in the same area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a show called 'Misfits' on UK tv right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfits\_(TV\_series) [wikipedia.org]

It's good.
Not exactly Misfits of Science, but in the same area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728464</id>
	<title>Re:There is only one worthy</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1263203580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ooooh.  Lensmen with modern tech.  And all the sexism and racism and  . . . Hmm.  Maybe not.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooooh .
Lensmen with modern tech .
And all the sexism and racism and .
. .
Hmm. Maybe not .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooooh.
Lensmen with modern tech.
And all the sexism and racism and  .
. .
Hmm.  Maybe not.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729744</id>
	<title>I vote for none of the above.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1263208200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't think of a single SF series that I dislike enough to suggest that they should be treated to the crapification process that constitutes reboots today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of a single SF series that I dislike enough to suggest that they should be treated to the crapification process that constitutes reboots today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of a single SF series that I dislike enough to suggest that they should be treated to the crapification process that constitutes reboots today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733952</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>JackieBrown</author>
	<datestamp>1263238260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is I don't know if Fillon or Bladwin would leave Castle and Chuck.</p><p>Obviously anything Glau touches dies (including her in dollhouse...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is I do n't know if Fillon or Bladwin would leave Castle and Chuck.Obviously anything Glau touches dies ( including her in dollhouse... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is I don't know if Fillon or Bladwin would leave Castle and Chuck.Obviously anything Glau touches dies (including her in dollhouse...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734540</id>
	<title>Re:Sliders</title>
	<author>DedTV</author>
	<datestamp>1263289620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sliders is definitely one deserving of a remake. The premise was fantastic. The writing and execution just went badly off the rails.

Another Jerry O'Connell show that could use a remake would be My Secret Identity. It'd fit right in with half of Disney's current hit shows.

I'd also like to see Quantum Leap remade. And of course, MacGyver has to be remade at some point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sliders is definitely one deserving of a remake .
The premise was fantastic .
The writing and execution just went badly off the rails .
Another Jerry O'Connell show that could use a remake would be My Secret Identity .
It 'd fit right in with half of Disney 's current hit shows .
I 'd also like to see Quantum Leap remade .
And of course , MacGyver has to be remade at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sliders is definitely one deserving of a remake.
The premise was fantastic.
The writing and execution just went badly off the rails.
Another Jerry O'Connell show that could use a remake would be My Secret Identity.
It'd fit right in with half of Disney's current hit shows.
I'd also like to see Quantum Leap remade.
And of course, MacGyver has to be remade at some point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735926</id>
	<title>Star Blazers, in adult tone.</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1263305520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, there is a Space Battleship Yamato live action film coming out of Japan at the end of the year.</p><p>I'd like to see Star Blazers done in an adult tone. There is a great depth in Space Battleship Yamato that was almost lost in the translation to Star Blazers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , there is a Space Battleship Yamato live action film coming out of Japan at the end of the year.I 'd like to see Star Blazers done in an adult tone .
There is a great depth in Space Battleship Yamato that was almost lost in the translation to Star Blazers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, there is a Space Battleship Yamato live action film coming out of Japan at the end of the year.I'd like to see Star Blazers done in an adult tone.
There is a great depth in Space Battleship Yamato that was almost lost in the translation to Star Blazers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729318</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight zone</title>
	<author>huckamania</author>
	<datestamp>1263206580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Ender's Game, Antares Dawn, Startide Rising, Fire in the Deep, Armor</i> <br> <br>

Great list.  I would add "Legacy of Heorot", which would be easy to adapt and has a similar story to "Avatar" without making the majority of the humans look evil.   Maybe when Arnie stops being a politician and returns to bad acting, er, acting bad, he could play Cadman Weyland.<br> <br>
I can't believe they made Vampire$ into a movie and not Armor.  Although, the Starship troopers movie is more like Steakley then Heinlein.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ender 's Game , Antares Dawn , Startide Rising , Fire in the Deep , Armor Great list .
I would add " Legacy of Heorot " , which would be easy to adapt and has a similar story to " Avatar " without making the majority of the humans look evil .
Maybe when Arnie stops being a politician and returns to bad acting , er , acting bad , he could play Cadman Weyland .
I ca n't believe they made Vampire $ into a movie and not Armor .
Although , the Starship troopers movie is more like Steakley then Heinlein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ender's Game, Antares Dawn, Startide Rising, Fire in the Deep, Armor  

Great list.
I would add "Legacy of Heorot", which would be easy to adapt and has a similar story to "Avatar" without making the majority of the humans look evil.
Maybe when Arnie stops being a politician and returns to bad acting, er, acting bad, he could play Cadman Weyland.
I can't believe they made Vampire$ into a movie and not Armor.
Although, the Starship troopers movie is more like Steakley then Heinlein.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728422</id>
	<title>Mostly, regurgitated shit will still be shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefly: no thanks</p><p>The Outer Limits: err, no</p><p>Quatermass: Yes as a horror, quality science fiction drama based around an old scientist.  No otherwise.</p><p>Earth 2: never heard of it</p><p>The Fantasic Journey: Although I've somewhat vague though fond memories of this... no</p><p>UFO: Could actually be good.</p><p>Space Above and Beyond: What little I saw of this was good.</p><p>The Starlost: Never seen or heard of it.  Annoying kids in the shot so no.</p><p>Blakes 7: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWHLU8fwi80" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Avon</a> [youtube.com] made the show, a BSG style remake could be okay.</p><p>The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure: Yet another super hero fantasy, hell no!</p><p>Space 1999: Weirded out to the max and somehow making even less sense than the original.  Hmmm.</p><p>Galaxy Rangers:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Roll eyes</p><p>Roswell: That show was utter shit.  No.</p><p>Babylon 5: Mixed bag the first time round. While it's influenced everything since for the better, it was a fine balance between brilliance and awfulness.  A spin off about war with the telepaths (a parable on privacy) could be interesting and horrific without ever being cheesy.</p><p>Max Headroom: I remember the (blipvert) movie well, the TV show not so much.  Someone could do that in in blender, most bands on myspace have access to a web cam.  The DIY version would probably be more interesting.</p><p>MST3K: Never screened in the UK to my knowledge.</p><p>The Greatest American Hero: I recall a "Some mothers do 'ave 'em" wannabe plus a leotard and minus any worthwhile humour. Pass.</p><p>Dark Skies: Liked what I saw of it but didn't go out of my way to watch the original.  Pass.</p><p>She-Wolf of London: Never seen or heard of it.</p><p>Star Cops: I think I saw one episode... thought it was crap. A police in space show could be good, Total Recall 2070 style.</p><p>Invasion America: Never watched cartoons</p><p>Thunderbirds: Could be done live action but it'd probably be silly.  Pass.</p><p>Salvage 1: Never seen or heard of it.</p><p>Automan: Garbage, no.</p><p>Space Rangers: Never seen or heard of it.</p><p>Quantum Leap: Crap, so no.</p><p>Lexx: Never quite new what to make of that one.</p><p>Manimal: Utter shit wasn't it? No.</p><p>Airwolf: Physics be damned, a helicopter can break the sound barrier!  No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefly : no thanksThe Outer Limits : err , noQuatermass : Yes as a horror , quality science fiction drama based around an old scientist .
No otherwise.Earth 2 : never heard of itThe Fantasic Journey : Although I 've somewhat vague though fond memories of this... noUFO : Could actually be good.Space Above and Beyond : What little I saw of this was good.The Starlost : Never seen or heard of it .
Annoying kids in the shot so no.Blakes 7 : Avon [ youtube.com ] made the show , a BSG style remake could be okay.The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure : Yet another super hero fantasy , hell no ! Space 1999 : Weirded out to the max and somehow making even less sense than the original .
Hmmm.Galaxy Rangers : ... Roll eyesRoswell : That show was utter shit .
No.Babylon 5 : Mixed bag the first time round .
While it 's influenced everything since for the better , it was a fine balance between brilliance and awfulness .
A spin off about war with the telepaths ( a parable on privacy ) could be interesting and horrific without ever being cheesy.Max Headroom : I remember the ( blipvert ) movie well , the TV show not so much .
Someone could do that in in blender , most bands on myspace have access to a web cam .
The DIY version would probably be more interesting.MST3K : Never screened in the UK to my knowledge.The Greatest American Hero : I recall a " Some mothers do 'ave 'em " wannabe plus a leotard and minus any worthwhile humour .
Pass.Dark Skies : Liked what I saw of it but did n't go out of my way to watch the original .
Pass.She-Wolf of London : Never seen or heard of it.Star Cops : I think I saw one episode... thought it was crap .
A police in space show could be good , Total Recall 2070 style.Invasion America : Never watched cartoonsThunderbirds : Could be done live action but it 'd probably be silly .
Pass.Salvage 1 : Never seen or heard of it.Automan : Garbage , no.Space Rangers : Never seen or heard of it.Quantum Leap : Crap , so no.Lexx : Never quite new what to make of that one.Manimal : Utter shit was n't it ?
No.Airwolf : Physics be damned , a helicopter can break the sound barrier !
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefly: no thanksThe Outer Limits: err, noQuatermass: Yes as a horror, quality science fiction drama based around an old scientist.
No otherwise.Earth 2: never heard of itThe Fantasic Journey: Although I've somewhat vague though fond memories of this... noUFO: Could actually be good.Space Above and Beyond: What little I saw of this was good.The Starlost: Never seen or heard of it.
Annoying kids in the shot so no.Blakes 7: Avon [youtube.com] made the show, a BSG style remake could be okay.The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure: Yet another super hero fantasy, hell no!Space 1999: Weirded out to the max and somehow making even less sense than the original.
Hmmm.Galaxy Rangers: ... Roll eyesRoswell: That show was utter shit.
No.Babylon 5: Mixed bag the first time round.
While it's influenced everything since for the better, it was a fine balance between brilliance and awfulness.
A spin off about war with the telepaths (a parable on privacy) could be interesting and horrific without ever being cheesy.Max Headroom: I remember the (blipvert) movie well, the TV show not so much.
Someone could do that in in blender, most bands on myspace have access to a web cam.
The DIY version would probably be more interesting.MST3K: Never screened in the UK to my knowledge.The Greatest American Hero: I recall a "Some mothers do 'ave 'em" wannabe plus a leotard and minus any worthwhile humour.
Pass.Dark Skies: Liked what I saw of it but didn't go out of my way to watch the original.
Pass.She-Wolf of London: Never seen or heard of it.Star Cops: I think I saw one episode... thought it was crap.
A police in space show could be good, Total Recall 2070 style.Invasion America: Never watched cartoonsThunderbirds: Could be done live action but it'd probably be silly.
Pass.Salvage 1: Never seen or heard of it.Automan: Garbage, no.Space Rangers: Never seen or heard of it.Quantum Leap: Crap, so no.Lexx: Never quite new what to make of that one.Manimal: Utter shit wasn't it?
No.Airwolf: Physics be damned, a helicopter can break the sound barrier!
No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730860</id>
	<title>Star Wars (IV, V, and VI)</title>
	<author>bcullman</author>
	<datestamp>1263213300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few have mentioned the Star Wars prequels, but not much has been said about the original trilogy.

My take on it is that *eventually* everything that is successful is redone and/or rebooted. The way I see it is that Lucas has two choices here.

1) He does not want the original Trilogy to be rebooted. Fine. Everyone waits until Lucas is dead and then they fight over Star Wars copyrights, and *eventually* an original Trilogy reboot is produced.
Results: Money is made hand over fist. (Note: This is not too different that how the Star Trek reboot happened.)

2) Lucas comes to the realization that the first scenario will happen if he does nothing, so instead, he gives the green light to do a Star Wars original trilogy reboot, provides some basic direction and ILM, but is otherwise hands off.
Results: *LUCAS* makes money is made hand over fist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few have mentioned the Star Wars prequels , but not much has been said about the original trilogy .
My take on it is that * eventually * everything that is successful is redone and/or rebooted .
The way I see it is that Lucas has two choices here .
1 ) He does not want the original Trilogy to be rebooted .
Fine. Everyone waits until Lucas is dead and then they fight over Star Wars copyrights , and * eventually * an original Trilogy reboot is produced .
Results : Money is made hand over fist .
( Note : This is not too different that how the Star Trek reboot happened .
) 2 ) Lucas comes to the realization that the first scenario will happen if he does nothing , so instead , he gives the green light to do a Star Wars original trilogy reboot , provides some basic direction and ILM , but is otherwise hands off .
Results : * LUCAS * makes money is made hand over fist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few have mentioned the Star Wars prequels, but not much has been said about the original trilogy.
My take on it is that *eventually* everything that is successful is redone and/or rebooted.
The way I see it is that Lucas has two choices here.
1) He does not want the original Trilogy to be rebooted.
Fine. Everyone waits until Lucas is dead and then they fight over Star Wars copyrights, and *eventually* an original Trilogy reboot is produced.
Results: Money is made hand over fist.
(Note: This is not too different that how the Star Trek reboot happened.
)

2) Lucas comes to the realization that the first scenario will happen if he does nothing, so instead, he gives the green light to do a Star Wars original trilogy reboot, provides some basic direction and ILM, but is otherwise hands off.
Results: *LUCAS* makes money is made hand over fist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727948</id>
	<title>What SciFi Should Get the Reboot Treatment Next?</title>
	<author>Liger-Zero</author>
	<datestamp>1263201720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shows that need a Reboot, Space 1999 although since it is 2010 now they should also rename it as 2099. Farscape!, I seen people talking about Rebooting Reboor, well it really doesn't need to be Rebooted, JUST MAKE MORE EPISODES!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D

That is my two cents on the topic</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shows that need a Reboot , Space 1999 although since it is 2010 now they should also rename it as 2099 .
Farscape ! , I seen people talking about Rebooting Reboor , well it really does n't need to be Rebooted , JUST MAKE MORE EPISODES !
: -D That is my two cents on the topic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shows that need a Reboot, Space 1999 although since it is 2010 now they should also rename it as 2099.
Farscape!, I seen people talking about Rebooting Reboor, well it really doesn't need to be Rebooted, JUST MAKE MORE EPISODES!
:-D

That is my two cents on the topic</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726876</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or something by Cory Doctorow or Charlie Stross, if you want to be a little more up-to-the-minute?</p></div><p>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Cory Doctorow?!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or something by Cory Doctorow or Charlie Stross , if you want to be a little more up-to-the-minute ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .
Cory Doctorow ? ! !
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or something by Cory Doctorow or Charlie Stross, if you want to be a little more up-to-the-minute?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Cory Doctorow?!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727770</id>
	<title>How about something from my childhood...</title>
	<author>tiberus</author>
	<datestamp>1263201120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I like some of the suggestions, although I would say FireFly is more in need of a transfusion (hmmm, or maybe the network execs need a brain transplant), they lack a certain level of moldy-ness.</p><p>How about Ultraman or Johnnie Socko and His Flying Robot but, please leave in the bad dubbing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I like some of the suggestions , although I would say FireFly is more in need of a transfusion ( hmmm , or maybe the network execs need a brain transplant ) , they lack a certain level of moldy-ness.How about Ultraman or Johnnie Socko and His Flying Robot but , please leave in the bad dubbing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I like some of the suggestions, although I would say FireFly is more in need of a transfusion (hmmm, or maybe the network execs need a brain transplant), they lack a certain level of moldy-ness.How about Ultraman or Johnnie Socko and His Flying Robot but, please leave in the bad dubbing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730730</id>
	<title>Re:The Tripods</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1263212760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC made a <a href="http://www.gnelson.demon.co.uk/Tripods.html" title="demon.co.uk">miniseries</a> [demon.co.uk] out of it. Alas, you can only get the first season on DVD (possibly due to negotiation over movie rights).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC made a miniseries [ demon.co.uk ] out of it .
Alas , you can only get the first season on DVD ( possibly due to negotiation over movie rights ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC made a miniseries [demon.co.uk] out of it.
Alas, you can only get the first season on DVD (possibly due to negotiation over movie rights).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727106</id>
	<title>How bouts...</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1263242460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ultraman, Johnny Rocko, Buck Rogers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ultraman , Johnny Rocko , Buck Rogers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ultraman, Johnny Rocko, Buck Rogers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730260</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263210420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anne Hathaway.  Nuff Said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anne Hathaway .
Nuff Said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anne Hathaway.
Nuff Said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727202</id>
	<title>Starman</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1263242700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I liked that show. Alien kills dude to inhabit his body, by accident, and takes care of the guys son as they are fleeing the law.  Though the son is OK with the alien sounds a bit far fetched...kind of like "yea shit happens, might as well move on with my life and deal with the cards that were dealt to me".  Still i would see this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked that show .
Alien kills dude to inhabit his body , by accident , and takes care of the guys son as they are fleeing the law .
Though the son is OK with the alien sounds a bit far fetched...kind of like " yea shit happens , might as well move on with my life and deal with the cards that were dealt to me " .
Still i would see this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked that show.
Alien kills dude to inhabit his body, by accident, and takes care of the guys son as they are fleeing the law.
Though the son is OK with the alien sounds a bit far fetched...kind of like "yea shit happens, might as well move on with my life and deal with the cards that were dealt to me".
Still i would see this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730152</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1263209880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, Slashdot already has just about everything you could use to build a tv show.
<br> <br>
Although they might get in trouble trying to create the Natalie Portman episode...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , Slashdot already has just about everything you could use to build a tv show .
Although they might get in trouble trying to create the Natalie Portman episode.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, Slashdot already has just about everything you could use to build a tv show.
Although they might get in trouble trying to create the Natalie Portman episode...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730910</id>
	<title>Some old series</title>
	<author>Darth Cider</author>
	<datestamp>1263213540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here are a few semi-cheesey series that might fit the bill.<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven\_Days\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">7 Days</a> [wikipedia.org] Not too bad as is.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code\_Name\_Eternity" title="wikipedia.org"> Code Name Eternity</a> [wikipedia.org] Very low budget feel.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth\_2\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">Earth 2</a> [wikipedia.org] As mentioned by others.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_Wave\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">First Wave</a> [wikipedia.org] Not a terrible premise. <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harsh\_Realm" title="wikipedia.org">Harsh Realm</a> [wikipedia.org] Came out the same year as The Matrix.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level\_9\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">Level 9</a> [wikipedia.org] Hackers working for the government?<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:\_Above\_and\_Beyond" title="wikipedia.org">Space Above And Beyond</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Precinct" title="wikipedia.org">Space Precinct 2040</a> [wikipedia.org] Like Barney Miller in space.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starhunter" title="wikipedia.org">Starhunter</a> [wikipedia.org] Interesting premise.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TekWar\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">TekWar</a> [wikipedia.org] William Shatner's trashterpiece.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Invaders" title="wikipedia.org">The Invaders</a> [wikipedia.org] The most retro of the lot.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Secret\_Adventures\_of\_Jules\_Verne" title="wikipedia.org">The Secret Adventures Of Jules Verne</a> [wikipedia.org] Too British.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Sentinel\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">The Sentinel</a> [wikipedia.org] Featuring Fiona Apple's brother.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Starlost" title="wikipedia.org">The Starlost</a> [wikipedia.org] With Keir Dullea - already mentioned.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time\_Trax" title="wikipedia.org">Time Trax</a> [wikipedia.org] Tootsie as the computer interface?<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total\_Recall\_2070" title="wikipedia.org">Total Recall 2070</a> [wikipedia.org] Could have been better.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome\_to\_paradox" title="wikipedia.org">Welcome To Paradox</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>I think Harsh Realm and Level 9 would be the most interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are a few semi-cheesey series that might fit the bill .
7 Days [ wikipedia.org ] Not too bad as is .
Code Name Eternity [ wikipedia.org ] Very low budget feel .
Earth 2 [ wikipedia.org ] As mentioned by others .
First Wave [ wikipedia.org ] Not a terrible premise .
Harsh Realm [ wikipedia.org ] Came out the same year as The Matrix .
Level 9 [ wikipedia.org ] Hackers working for the government ?
Space Above And Beyond [ wikipedia.org ] Space Precinct 2040 [ wikipedia.org ] Like Barney Miller in space .
Starhunter [ wikipedia.org ] Interesting premise .
TekWar [ wikipedia.org ] William Shatner 's trashterpiece .
The Invaders [ wikipedia.org ] The most retro of the lot .
The Secret Adventures Of Jules Verne [ wikipedia.org ] Too British .
The Sentinel [ wikipedia.org ] Featuring Fiona Apple 's brother .
The Starlost [ wikipedia.org ] With Keir Dullea - already mentioned .
Time Trax [ wikipedia.org ] Tootsie as the computer interface ?
Total Recall 2070 [ wikipedia.org ] Could have been better .
Welcome To Paradox [ wikipedia.org ] I think Harsh Realm and Level 9 would be the most interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are a few semi-cheesey series that might fit the bill.
7 Days [wikipedia.org] Not too bad as is.
Code Name Eternity [wikipedia.org] Very low budget feel.
Earth 2 [wikipedia.org] As mentioned by others.
First Wave [wikipedia.org] Not a terrible premise.
Harsh Realm [wikipedia.org] Came out the same year as The Matrix.
Level 9 [wikipedia.org] Hackers working for the government?
Space Above And Beyond [wikipedia.org] 
Space Precinct 2040 [wikipedia.org] Like Barney Miller in space.
Starhunter [wikipedia.org] Interesting premise.
TekWar [wikipedia.org] William Shatner's trashterpiece.
The Invaders [wikipedia.org] The most retro of the lot.
The Secret Adventures Of Jules Verne [wikipedia.org] Too British.
The Sentinel [wikipedia.org] Featuring Fiona Apple's brother.
The Starlost [wikipedia.org] With Keir Dullea - already mentioned.
Time Trax [wikipedia.org] Tootsie as the computer interface?
Total Recall 2070 [wikipedia.org] Could have been better.
Welcome To Paradox [wikipedia.org]  I think Harsh Realm and Level 9 would be the most interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727406</id>
	<title>Some Don't Seem Clear on what "Reboot" mean</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1263243240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reboot does not mean "make more episodes of a series" or "adapt a series for TV/film"
</p><p>Reboot means, "restart a series in a way that likely will have very little similarity with the original."
</p><p>Strangely, american comics are better at doing this than tv/film writers are.  The only example of something I recall that I *like* how the reboot is going is the recent Batman movies, but that is, ironically, a reboot that resulted from the ridiculous things that the previous run had become.
</p><p>More new ideas, please.  Stop just using the shells of classic shows for their name recognition and nostalgia value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reboot does not mean " make more episodes of a series " or " adapt a series for TV/film " Reboot means , " restart a series in a way that likely will have very little similarity with the original .
" Strangely , american comics are better at doing this than tv/film writers are .
The only example of something I recall that I * like * how the reboot is going is the recent Batman movies , but that is , ironically , a reboot that resulted from the ridiculous things that the previous run had become .
More new ideas , please .
Stop just using the shells of classic shows for their name recognition and nostalgia value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reboot does not mean "make more episodes of a series" or "adapt a series for TV/film"
Reboot means, "restart a series in a way that likely will have very little similarity with the original.
"
Strangely, american comics are better at doing this than tv/film writers are.
The only example of something I recall that I *like* how the reboot is going is the recent Batman movies, but that is, ironically, a reboot that resulted from the ridiculous things that the previous run had become.
More new ideas, please.
Stop just using the shells of classic shows for their name recognition and nostalgia value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728382</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1263203340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a "Red Mars" "Green Mars" "Blue Mars" trilogy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a " Red Mars " " Green Mars " " Blue Mars " trilogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a "Red Mars" "Green Mars" "Blue Mars" trilogy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744120</id>
	<title>Re:Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"?</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1263297420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I've invented an original SF series idea.  I just don't have connections with producers, writers, actors, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 've invented an original SF series idea .
I just do n't have connections with producers , writers , actors , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I've invented an original SF series idea.
I just don't have connections with producers, writers, actors, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731998</id>
	<title>Timeslip</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Timeslip. Because adults won't get good sci-fi tomorrow if children don't see it today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Timeslip .
Because adults wo n't get good sci-fi tomorrow if children do n't see it today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Timeslip.
Because adults won't get good sci-fi tomorrow if children don't see it today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728368</id>
	<title>Space 1999</title>
	<author>Gnaythan1</author>
	<datestamp>1263203280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what the hell happened to that moon colony? And the cyborg uprising?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what the hell happened to that moon colony ?
And the cyborg uprising ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what the hell happened to that moon colony?
And the cyborg uprising?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729974</id>
	<title>Anything but Wrestling and Ghost Hunting.</title>
	<author>cpufrier37075</author>
	<datestamp>1263209100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything, absolutely anything but wrestling and ghost hunting.  Hell, the history channel has more scifi than SyFy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything , absolutely anything but wrestling and ghost hunting .
Hell , the history channel has more scifi than SyFy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything, absolutely anything but wrestling and ghost hunting.
Hell, the history channel has more scifi than SyFy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727758</id>
	<title>Try some old movies for ideas</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1263201120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go back to the great old Science Fiction movies, instead of just remaking lousy old TV shows</p><p>Buckaroo Bonsai<br>Plan 9 from Outer Space<br>It<br>Them</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go back to the great old Science Fiction movies , instead of just remaking lousy old TV showsBuckaroo BonsaiPlan 9 from Outer SpaceItThem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go back to the great old Science Fiction movies, instead of just remaking lousy old TV showsBuckaroo BonsaiPlan 9 from Outer SpaceItThem</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727628</id>
	<title>Re:B5: Crusade</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263200700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the series had issues, like the music</i></p><p>I never saw a single episode of <i>Enterprise</i>, as I couldn't get past that God-awful theme song. From what I hear the show itself was just as bad, so maybe I didn't miss anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the series had issues , like the musicI never saw a single episode of Enterprise , as I could n't get past that God-awful theme song .
From what I hear the show itself was just as bad , so maybe I did n't miss anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the series had issues, like the musicI never saw a single episode of Enterprise, as I couldn't get past that God-awful theme song.
From what I hear the show itself was just as bad, so maybe I didn't miss anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730120</id>
	<title>Re:Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>partly.  but the length of copyright in the United Stattes currently lies beyond the powers granted to our federal government by our constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>partly .
but the length of copyright in the United Stattes currently lies beyond the powers granted to our federal government by our constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>partly.
but the length of copyright in the United Stattes currently lies beyond the powers granted to our federal government by our constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727922</id>
	<title>The spelling you're looking for is "sci-fi".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh..   by such prominent capitalization and lack of hyphenation in the summary -- i.e. using "SciFi" -- you're supporting the idea that dilution and trademarkability are viable concerns, thus validating the channel's change to the name "SyFy".  The abbreviation for "science fiction" is "sci-fi" .  It's not capitalized, and should probably be hyphenated.  "SciFi" is the old name of the channel, and the use of this spelling is the only reason the clarification was even needed.</p><p>&lt;/rant&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh.. by such prominent capitalization and lack of hyphenation in the summary -- i.e .
using " SciFi " -- you 're supporting the idea that dilution and trademarkability are viable concerns , thus validating the channel 's change to the name " SyFy " .
The abbreviation for " science fiction " is " sci-fi " .
It 's not capitalized , and should probably be hyphenated .
" SciFi " is the old name of the channel , and the use of this spelling is the only reason the clarification was even needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh..   by such prominent capitalization and lack of hyphenation in the summary -- i.e.
using "SciFi" -- you're supporting the idea that dilution and trademarkability are viable concerns, thus validating the channel's change to the name "SyFy".
The abbreviation for "science fiction" is "sci-fi" .
It's not capitalized, and should probably be hyphenated.
"SciFi" is the old name of the channel, and the use of this spelling is the only reason the clarification was even needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726850</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1263241560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Firefly has a (too) short lived TV run and a movie. There's not really any baggage to drop.</p><p>The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.</p></div><p>See, that's what would be rebooted.  The short lifespan and the execs would be booted.  With a bladed boot.  Into a volcano.</p><p>Even if we don't restart the show, I'd like to see them get kicked into a volcano.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefly has a ( too ) short lived TV run and a movie .
There 's not really any baggage to drop.The only thing I 'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.See , that 's what would be rebooted .
The short lifespan and the execs would be booted .
With a bladed boot .
Into a volcano.Even if we do n't restart the show , I 'd like to see them get kicked into a volcano .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Firefly has a (too) short lived TV run and a movie.
There's not really any baggage to drop.The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.See, that's what would be rebooted.
The short lifespan and the execs would be booted.
With a bladed boot.
Into a volcano.Even if we don't restart the show, I'd like to see them get kicked into a volcano.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30736172</id>
	<title>Re:Smegging 'Dwarf anybody?</title>
	<author>Huzzah!</author>
	<datestamp>1263307020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you like some toast?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you like some toast ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you like some toast?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732462</id>
	<title>Re:How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids?</title>
	<author>greenguy</author>
	<datestamp>1263223860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did I get "insightful?" I was going for "funny."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did I get " insightful ?
" I was going for " funny .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did I get "insightful?
" I was going for "funny.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729618</id>
	<title>Re:SciFi?</title>
	<author>ppanon</author>
	<datestamp>1263207720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.scifiinc.org/" title="scifiinc.org">It's pronounced ski-fi.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</a> [scifiinc.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pronounced ski-fi .
: - ) [ scifiinc.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pronounced ski-fi.
:-) [scifiinc.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732632</id>
	<title>P.S. 28 days later.</title>
	<author>IBitOBear</author>
	<datestamp>1263225180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A real life friend asked about the reference so...</p><p>If you watch the alternate endings on the DVD of 28 days later, they wanted to have a symmetrical ending where the main male lead would sacrifice himself to save the girl's father. Medically they wanted to "cure" to be a huge sacrifice, where it takes one person surrendering their life to save any other from the disease.</p><p>The ending scene would then have the male lead tied down to the table watching the scenes of violence on the monitors, in a poetic juxtaposition to the monkey in the opening scene.</p><p>They realized they "couldn't do that" because the disease was too infectious for them to do the whol-body blood transfusion they envisioned. They were, of course correct, no transfusion could do it...</p><p>So here is the "patch" for the movie to give them their ending, both visually and "technically" at least to the degree of "technically correct" established by the rest of the movie.</p><p>PATCH: The cure is basically the original virus that was engineered to become the super weapon. You give that to an uninfected donor person. Then as they go mad the original, slow way you give them a shot of bone marrow collected from the person you want to cure. This contains the infected immune cells of the intended recipient. The donor's immune system, primed with the more robust but slower original virus produces antibodies to unique viral strain created by the fast virus and the recipients genetics. The donor's blood serum now contains an antibody uniquely matched to the recipient which will jump-start their immune system. The donor cannot be re-used since introducing a second bone marrow sample would produce an immune complex that would simply kill the second recipient systemic organ rejection.</p><p>Okay, its all techno-babble, but it's \_good\_ techno-babble. It can be acted out on screen with big pantomime gestures. I has all the dramatic elements the writers and cinematographers were after. It actually makes more sense than a disease so virulent that it can drive you mad in seconds.</p><p>But that is the essence of a good patch, it changes the minimum while correcting the flaw and allowing for the desired outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A real life friend asked about the reference so...If you watch the alternate endings on the DVD of 28 days later , they wanted to have a symmetrical ending where the main male lead would sacrifice himself to save the girl 's father .
Medically they wanted to " cure " to be a huge sacrifice , where it takes one person surrendering their life to save any other from the disease.The ending scene would then have the male lead tied down to the table watching the scenes of violence on the monitors , in a poetic juxtaposition to the monkey in the opening scene.They realized they " could n't do that " because the disease was too infectious for them to do the whol-body blood transfusion they envisioned .
They were , of course correct , no transfusion could do it...So here is the " patch " for the movie to give them their ending , both visually and " technically " at least to the degree of " technically correct " established by the rest of the movie.PATCH : The cure is basically the original virus that was engineered to become the super weapon .
You give that to an uninfected donor person .
Then as they go mad the original , slow way you give them a shot of bone marrow collected from the person you want to cure .
This contains the infected immune cells of the intended recipient .
The donor 's immune system , primed with the more robust but slower original virus produces antibodies to unique viral strain created by the fast virus and the recipients genetics .
The donor 's blood serum now contains an antibody uniquely matched to the recipient which will jump-start their immune system .
The donor can not be re-used since introducing a second bone marrow sample would produce an immune complex that would simply kill the second recipient systemic organ rejection.Okay , its all techno-babble , but it 's \ _good \ _ techno-babble .
It can be acted out on screen with big pantomime gestures .
I has all the dramatic elements the writers and cinematographers were after .
It actually makes more sense than a disease so virulent that it can drive you mad in seconds.But that is the essence of a good patch , it changes the minimum while correcting the flaw and allowing for the desired outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A real life friend asked about the reference so...If you watch the alternate endings on the DVD of 28 days later, they wanted to have a symmetrical ending where the main male lead would sacrifice himself to save the girl's father.
Medically they wanted to "cure" to be a huge sacrifice, where it takes one person surrendering their life to save any other from the disease.The ending scene would then have the male lead tied down to the table watching the scenes of violence on the monitors, in a poetic juxtaposition to the monkey in the opening scene.They realized they "couldn't do that" because the disease was too infectious for them to do the whol-body blood transfusion they envisioned.
They were, of course correct, no transfusion could do it...So here is the "patch" for the movie to give them their ending, both visually and "technically" at least to the degree of "technically correct" established by the rest of the movie.PATCH: The cure is basically the original virus that was engineered to become the super weapon.
You give that to an uninfected donor person.
Then as they go mad the original, slow way you give them a shot of bone marrow collected from the person you want to cure.
This contains the infected immune cells of the intended recipient.
The donor's immune system, primed with the more robust but slower original virus produces antibodies to unique viral strain created by the fast virus and the recipients genetics.
The donor's blood serum now contains an antibody uniquely matched to the recipient which will jump-start their immune system.
The donor cannot be re-used since introducing a second bone marrow sample would produce an immune complex that would simply kill the second recipient systemic organ rejection.Okay, its all techno-babble, but it's \_good\_ techno-babble.
It can be acted out on screen with big pantomime gestures.
I has all the dramatic elements the writers and cinematographers were after.
It actually makes more sense than a disease so virulent that it can drive you mad in seconds.But that is the essence of a good patch, it changes the minimum while correcting the flaw and allowing for the desired outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731142</id>
	<title>Otherworld</title>
	<author>Mi1ez</author>
	<datestamp>1263214800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kinda surprised NOBODY has mentioned "Otherworld"  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherworld\_\%28TV\_series\%29)
I used to LOVE that show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda surprised NOBODY has mentioned " Otherworld " ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherworld \ _ \ % 28TV \ _series \ % 29 ) I used to LOVE that show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda surprised NOBODY has mentioned "Otherworld"  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherworld\_\%28TV\_series\%29)
I used to LOVE that show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30742048</id>
	<title>Re:There is only one worthy</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1263287400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, der, of course you'd update it to more modern sensibilities. The basic story does not change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , der , of course you 'd update it to more modern sensibilities .
The basic story does not change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, der, of course you'd update it to more modern sensibilities.
The basic story does not change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726716</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263241260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What part of Firefly do you think needed a reboot?  The whole point of these reboots is to drop the decades of cruft that have dogged down a series and made it impossible to create anything new thanks to all of the baggage.  Firefly has a (too) short lived TV run and a movie.  There's not really any baggage to drop.



The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.</p></div><p>I'll second this . . . Firefly was canceled it way to soon.

If Stargate can live on like it is why can't Firefly?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What part of Firefly do you think needed a reboot ?
The whole point of these reboots is to drop the decades of cruft that have dogged down a series and made it impossible to create anything new thanks to all of the baggage .
Firefly has a ( too ) short lived TV run and a movie .
There 's not really any baggage to drop .
The only thing I 'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.I 'll second this .
. .
Firefly was canceled it way to soon .
If Stargate can live on like it is why ca n't Firefly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What part of Firefly do you think needed a reboot?
The whole point of these reboots is to drop the decades of cruft that have dogged down a series and made it impossible to create anything new thanks to all of the baggage.
Firefly has a (too) short lived TV run and a movie.
There's not really any baggage to drop.
The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.I'll second this .
. .
Firefly was canceled it way to soon.
If Stargate can live on like it is why can't Firefly?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730498</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Iain Banks</p></div><p>Word.</p><p>Let's get a <i>Consider Phlebas</i> or <i>Matter</i> (or whatever) movie to kick-off a whole Culture series. Superb books that, while holding a chronology, can be read in whatever order you find them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Iain BanksWord.Let 's get a Consider Phlebas or Matter ( or whatever ) movie to kick-off a whole Culture series .
Superb books that , while holding a chronology , can be read in whatever order you find them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iain BanksWord.Let's get a Consider Phlebas or Matter (or whatever) movie to kick-off a whole Culture series.
Superb books that, while holding a chronology, can be read in whatever order you find them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730514</id>
	<title>Re:Three words:</title>
	<author>MightyMait</author>
	<datestamp>1263211560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was wondering if I'd see anybody mention this gem.  It was such a refreshing breath of fresh air compared to the other Saturday morning fare.  I just love me a good post-apocalyptic dystopia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering if I 'd see anybody mention this gem .
It was such a refreshing breath of fresh air compared to the other Saturday morning fare .
I just love me a good post-apocalyptic dystopia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering if I'd see anybody mention this gem.
It was such a refreshing breath of fresh air compared to the other Saturday morning fare.
I just love me a good post-apocalyptic dystopia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727986</id>
	<title>Scalzi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why won't that take some of Scalzi's stuff and make miniseries/tv shows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why wo n't that take some of Scalzi 's stuff and make miniseries/tv shows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why won't that take some of Scalzi's stuff and make miniseries/tv shows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728912</id>
	<title>How about something NEW for a change?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263205140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone else tired of <em>everything</em> the old media presents us with is either a remake, a sequel, a prequel or parallel to something already existing in some other way?</p><p>How about final closure on Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Galactica, etc?<br>And how about something new?</p><p>The only thing I can remember, that was original, was District 9. And even that was more two old things together, to make something new.<br>And before that, Matrix. THAT was something really new (to me) and great.</p><p>How about more of that (totally new stuff)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else tired of everything the old media presents us with is either a remake , a sequel , a prequel or parallel to something already existing in some other way ? How about final closure on Star Wars , Star Trek , Babylon 5 , Galactica , etc ? And how about something new ? The only thing I can remember , that was original , was District 9 .
And even that was more two old things together , to make something new.And before that , Matrix .
THAT was something really new ( to me ) and great.How about more of that ( totally new stuff ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else tired of everything the old media presents us with is either a remake, a sequel, a prequel or parallel to something already existing in some other way?How about final closure on Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Galactica, etc?And how about something new?The only thing I can remember, that was original, was District 9.
And even that was more two old things together, to make something new.And before that, Matrix.
THAT was something really new (to me) and great.How about more of that (totally new stuff)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728078</id>
	<title>War of the Worlds, the series, Alien Nation</title>
	<author>spribyl</author>
	<datestamp>1263202200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first not so good but with potential.<br>The second excellent with potential.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first not so good but with potential.The second excellent with potential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first not so good but with potential.The second excellent with potential.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727956</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1263201780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>tidy up the 'I don't know the difference between a galaxy and a star system' bug in the original</i></p><p>It was explicitly said that the Firefly ships (like the Serenity) and the other ships we saw did not have FTL ability, and spent all their time in one star system.  It was also said that that one system had dozens of planets and hundreds of moons.  It was never said how people managed to travel to this one star system (I'm guessing sub-light travel with the passengers in suspended animation), and the only reason ever given for why people traveled here was "Earth got all used up".</p><p>I don't think the solar system in Firefly is very plausible.  And I have issues with some other science (a box of concentrated food was shown as very valuable, valuable enough to be worth flying the Serenity out to a remote moon for a trade; surgery to re-attach a severed ear required highly special medical equipment; getting victim ships to fly through a giant hoop that killed everyone on board was extremely silly; it's hard to believe that Reavers could even fly ships, let alone keep their ships in good working order; etc.).  But I felt it was not so bad that it jarred me out of suspension of disbelief.</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tidy up the 'I do n't know the difference between a galaxy and a star system ' bug in the originalIt was explicitly said that the Firefly ships ( like the Serenity ) and the other ships we saw did not have FTL ability , and spent all their time in one star system .
It was also said that that one system had dozens of planets and hundreds of moons .
It was never said how people managed to travel to this one star system ( I 'm guessing sub-light travel with the passengers in suspended animation ) , and the only reason ever given for why people traveled here was " Earth got all used up " .I do n't think the solar system in Firefly is very plausible .
And I have issues with some other science ( a box of concentrated food was shown as very valuable , valuable enough to be worth flying the Serenity out to a remote moon for a trade ; surgery to re-attach a severed ear required highly special medical equipment ; getting victim ships to fly through a giant hoop that killed everyone on board was extremely silly ; it 's hard to believe that Reavers could even fly ships , let alone keep their ships in good working order ; etc. ) .
But I felt it was not so bad that it jarred me out of suspension of disbelief.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tidy up the 'I don't know the difference between a galaxy and a star system' bug in the originalIt was explicitly said that the Firefly ships (like the Serenity) and the other ships we saw did not have FTL ability, and spent all their time in one star system.
It was also said that that one system had dozens of planets and hundreds of moons.
It was never said how people managed to travel to this one star system (I'm guessing sub-light travel with the passengers in suspended animation), and the only reason ever given for why people traveled here was "Earth got all used up".I don't think the solar system in Firefly is very plausible.
And I have issues with some other science (a box of concentrated food was shown as very valuable, valuable enough to be worth flying the Serenity out to a remote moon for a trade; surgery to re-attach a severed ear required highly special medical equipment; getting victim ships to fly through a giant hoop that killed everyone on board was extremely silly; it's hard to believe that Reavers could even fly ships, let alone keep their ships in good working order; etc.).
But I felt it was not so bad that it jarred me out of suspension of disbelief.steveha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726858</id>
	<title>Re:Why Firefly?</title>
	<author>Lisandro</author>
	<datestamp>1263241620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not reboot. I'd just <b>LOVE</b> to see the series continued. The movie kinda sealed the story shut, but still, that show was killed way before it was due.</p><p>Bring back Firefly. Please. Pretty please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not reboot .
I 'd just LOVE to see the series continued .
The movie kinda sealed the story shut , but still , that show was killed way before it was due.Bring back Firefly .
Please. Pretty please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not reboot.
I'd just LOVE to see the series continued.
The movie kinda sealed the story shut, but still, that show was killed way before it was due.Bring back Firefly.
Please. Pretty please!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730154</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>LukeWebber</author>
	<datestamp>1263209880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bingo. But I'd rather go back than buy into all the Singularity/Nanotech stuff we're seeing these days. Showing my age, I guess.<br>Give me some good old Zelazny - Lord of Light and This Immortal. Ender's Game (but not the sequelae). The Stars My Destination. And yes, Miles is fertile ground, and very popular; I'd love a movie of A Civil Campaign.<br>And please, don't try to bring everything into the present/future. I'd love to see some old Heinlein stories set in their original backgrounds. No compromises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo .
But I 'd rather go back than buy into all the Singularity/Nanotech stuff we 're seeing these days .
Showing my age , I guess.Give me some good old Zelazny - Lord of Light and This Immortal .
Ender 's Game ( but not the sequelae ) .
The Stars My Destination .
And yes , Miles is fertile ground , and very popular ; I 'd love a movie of A Civil Campaign.And please , do n't try to bring everything into the present/future .
I 'd love to see some old Heinlein stories set in their original backgrounds .
No compromises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.
But I'd rather go back than buy into all the Singularity/Nanotech stuff we're seeing these days.
Showing my age, I guess.Give me some good old Zelazny - Lord of Light and This Immortal.
Ender's Game (but not the sequelae).
The Stars My Destination.
And yes, Miles is fertile ground, and very popular; I'd love a movie of A Civil Campaign.And please, don't try to bring everything into the present/future.
I'd love to see some old Heinlein stories set in their original backgrounds.
No compromises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727020</id>
	<title>Re:How about none?</title>
	<author>Kemanorel</author>
	<datestamp>1263242160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I get a <i>Snow Crash</i> movie or mini-series here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I get a Snow Crash movie or mini-series here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I get a Snow Crash movie or mini-series here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728518</id>
	<title>Re:SciFi?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263203820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently SyFy also covers Professional Wrestling. Luckily, since the SciFi network changed their name so they could trademark SyFy, they're probably going to fight any attempt to let SyFy be used as a generic label for Science Fiction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently SyFy also covers Professional Wrestling .
Luckily , since the SciFi network changed their name so they could trademark SyFy , they 're probably going to fight any attempt to let SyFy be used as a generic label for Science Fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently SyFy also covers Professional Wrestling.
Luckily, since the SciFi network changed their name so they could trademark SyFy, they're probably going to fight any attempt to let SyFy be used as a generic label for Science Fiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730074</id>
	<title>Re:Ringworld</title>
	<author>pgrove2</author>
	<datestamp>1263209520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The concept of the organ banks in Niven's known space collection would make for a real interesting ethical discussion in our current society where we debate stem cell research.  Sure, we have seen hints of it in Coma, and The Matrix, and even in the forthcoming vampire movies, but Niven just makes it part of the universe.  They can do the CGI on all of those aliens now.

Saberhagen's Berserker series would make for a great action movie too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The concept of the organ banks in Niven 's known space collection would make for a real interesting ethical discussion in our current society where we debate stem cell research .
Sure , we have seen hints of it in Coma , and The Matrix , and even in the forthcoming vampire movies , but Niven just makes it part of the universe .
They can do the CGI on all of those aliens now .
Saberhagen 's Berserker series would make for a great action movie too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concept of the organ banks in Niven's known space collection would make for a real interesting ethical discussion in our current society where we debate stem cell research.
Sure, we have seen hints of it in Coma, and The Matrix, and even in the forthcoming vampire movies, but Niven just makes it part of the universe.
They can do the CGI on all of those aliens now.
Saberhagen's Berserker series would make for a great action movie too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30794460</id>
	<title>It's about time they Reboot SPACE 1999  !!!</title>
	<author>Ragooman</author>
	<datestamp>1263645960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about time they Reboot SPACE 1999  !!!
just change the damn year</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time they Reboot SPACE 1999 ! ! !
just change the damn year</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time they Reboot SPACE 1999  !!!
just change the damn year</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_209</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_195</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_204</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_217</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_190</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_203</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_214</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_187</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_222</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_197</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_220</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_206</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30736142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30739052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_211</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_186</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_194</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_205</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_216</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_224</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_200</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_219</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_213</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_192</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30736172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_223</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30742048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30746650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_189</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_199</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_210</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_193</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30738306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_208</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30740416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_202</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_188</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_196</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_221</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_207</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_218</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30770610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_226</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_201</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_212</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_191</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30740964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_215</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_225</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30739202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1629214_198</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729070
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30736142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30742048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30739202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30739052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30740416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30746650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30736172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30738306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727802
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729384
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732440
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732632
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730632
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30741832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731910
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730724
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30744500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30734376
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730706
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30731290
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732362
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30740964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30733440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30732462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30729242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30728488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30727794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1629214.64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30726792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30730930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30735722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1629214.30770610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
