A young warrior seeking to prove himself is transformed to take on the appearance of his enemy. Finding himself in an unfamiliar viewpoint, he comes to understand his once-enemy's viewpoint, even falling in love. He then seeks to right the wrongs he has wrought, even if it means turning against those he once counted as brothers.

That's right ladies and gentlemen, James Cameron cribbed the plot for Avatar from Disney's Brother Bear! Welcome to the 2009 movie experience!

However, as my friends have been going on callbacks, they've reported back that their employers are utilizing Google, Facebook, and Twitter information during the interview. I applaude that employers are using technology to be able to learn as much about potential hires as they can, but it comes with a flaw: some of my friends have been forced to do damage control in their own interviews. Not because of inappropriate information that was dredged up on their online profiles, but rather because the information the employers pulled up was for the wrong person. It's happened more (obviously) with my friends that have more common last names, but it's still an issue.

So I've now run into a problem with my approach to protecting my online identity from the other direction. In locking down the access to my accounts so that no one can find me, I leave employers not with no information to find on me, but only misinformation to find on me. The modern-day mantra is no longer protecting the online identity, but rather maintaining it.

Yesterday, in preperation for a meet-and-greet with potential employers, I found myself creating a LinkedIn profile, opening up portions of my Facebook account to public search, and creating a Twitter account. I also created a Google Profile and cross-linked every single one of these accounts to create a cohesive online presence.

The idea is to make yourself easily searchable, but limit the information that can be found in a search. I give away enough information that an employer will be certain that I'm the same person he/she is looking for, but beyond that, there's almost nothing to be found.

Maintain the identity, don't hide it. It's better to be found than someone else to be found and it assumed to be you.

Like any good attempt at a plot, it leaves itself open to a healthy discussion on the merits of the plot. On the other hand, any good discussion quickly spirals off from whence it began. It is in that vein that I'm re-posting the comments between Dave and I on his post. I've reorganized the statements so they can be followed more coherently. But first, go read Dave's article. I'll wait.

You back? Ok then.

Me: Good theory, but I don't think it'll pan out. Here's why.

Bioware is putting an inordinant amount of interest in the fact that there is a real possibility of dying in the final sequence, and that such a death is completely plausible as an ending. Your storyline, while I would dearly love to see it, hinges too much (I think) on the success of Shepard's mission in order to be viable as a plot.

Furthermore, Bioware is also making a big deal over not being able to replay through with characters, instead emphasizing that after the main story is completed, there will be an ability to explore additional worlds/side-quests/etc. Getting stranded on an uncharted world seems to foreclose that possibility.

Now, I agree with you fully that the plot line should involve the Collectors in some fashion, and I think that a connection between the Reapers and the Collectors is also a strong likelihood. I also feel that your supposition on the Collectors being the creators of the Reapers a fair shot. The bit about "no ships going through the Omega-4 relay ever return" seems to be a good plot point for an endgame though.

That's it for the most part. I think the main thrust of your theory is good, but I think the endgame sequence will play out differently than we think.

Dave: Points noted. I find it very difficult to reconcile BioWare's announcement of post-credits content with the archetypal 'hero cast down in shambles' denouement to a trilogy's 2nd act. In the end, I went w/ the latter in the hopes that BW could implement the former in some, to me, unforeseen way.

On the Shep dying, I truly believe that BW does not regard this as the "right" ending, and thus the player who perishes receives a completely separate ending from what BW will use to transition into ME3.

They're both good catches on your end, and leave me in a position to hope that BW has implemented scenarios we haven't yet conceived of.

The one thing that I think will be massively important but that I didn't work in here is the issue of Klencory. Supposedly there are the "lost crypts of beings of light" who were created to protect organic life from the synthetic "machine devils." So, BW's essentially laid the groundwork for whatever is on/in Klencory to be what you use to destroy/disable the Reapers.

Of course, when next Spring rolls around, all of this will be wrong.

Dave: ETA: perhaps the post-credits action could consist of your primary handler with Cerberus (presumably Miranda) feeling a stronger connection from all your time together than she does for Cerberus any longer (another archetypal action), going rogue, and rescuing you. You then have a ship, a squadmate, and the ability to re-build your crew via DLC. Just a thought.

"Good morning. Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world, and you will be launching the largest aerial battle in the history of mankind. Mankind, that word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences any more. We will be united in our common interest. Perhaps it's fate that today is the 4th of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom. Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution, but from annihilation. We're fighting for our right to live, to exist! And should we win the day, the 4th of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice, 'We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on, we're going to survive.' Today we celebrate our independence day!"

President Thomas Whitmore
July 4th, 1996

Futurama was a series that I couldn't catch until it was too late to save it. In my generation, it seems like there were two great animated television shows that FOX cancelled too soon: Family Guy and Futurama. These shows, along with Firefly, were massivily popular DVD sellers, and many believed that the shows' crazy popularity was indicative that FOX was run by morons and that the shows never should have been cancelled in the first place.

It always seemed though, that between the two shows, everyone had a favorite. Despite my love of Family Guy's quirky humor and pop-culture references, Futurama is the clear winner for me. I love the sci-fi references, the legitimately smart humor, and the nods to real science that the show used so well in conveying its story. The cast of characters was great as well:

For the uninitiated: See that robot? Don't let him near your wallet

Every character had a place, from the lovable sad-sap Zoidberg (the lobster) to the stupid (but special) Fry (red jacket), who acidentally froze himself a thousand years ago, only to wake up in the year 3000.  Fry ends up teaming with a cyclops Leela (purple hair) and a robot (really? You can't tell from the photo?) to work for Fry's great-great-great-great-great-...-great-nephew, the Professor (in the slippers). They work, for all things, as a package delivery service, Planet Express. As expected, hijinks ensue.

I really enjoy the way the writers approached this show. The were masters at drawing paralles to classic literature, 20th century life, and real science in making the show's humor work. It's not uncommon for a character to object to a photo-finish horse race by citing the Hawthorne effect. Nor would it be uncommon for the characters to find themselves in a parody of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It was a mix of references much more subtly done than Family Guy, slapstick humor, and nerdy science jokes that made this show resonate. When you take that mix, add the creative direction of Matt Groening and David X. Cohen, and then add a truly lovable cast of characters you get a show that is incredibly fun to watch. If you're still not sold, watch a few of these clips:

Collection of moments - mainly Fry screaming

Anti-Piracy Warning

Fry's Life

Ahh, Zoidberg

At the same time, it seems like Ubisoft is keeping the elements that made the Splinter Cell franschise into such a juggernaut. Stealth elements are still there, but slightly less emphasized. In my mind, that just means I have to work harder to stay stealthy. Sweet! The acrobatic movements and takedowns look even better than ever. And finally, despite the rumors, Michael Ironside is back, lending gravelly tones to Sam.

Take a look at the trailer below, and then hit the jump for seven and a half minutes of gameplay footage.

(Insert Coin to Continue)

But then a funny thing happens: A guy like JJ Abrams comes along and decides that this hierarchy thing doesn't matter one whit. And so JJ Abrams goes and reboots the Star Trek franchise into something young, hip, and absolutely amazing to watch.

I'm not a Trekkie. Never was. I grew up on Star Wars, then Firefly. I never saw a single Star Trek episode, be it from the original series, TNG, Deep Spece 9, Voyager, or Enterprise. I never saw any of the eleven (11!) movies the franchise has put out. I just wasn't into the series.

But then I saw the trailers. They were amazing looking. The movie had me hooked. There wasn't a thing I could see looking at it that would dissuade me from going. And so I did:

Let me just say: this was a fantastic film. The cast they chose replicates and pays homage to so many of the characteristics that made the original series so endearing to its fans. Chris Pine is fantastic as a young Kirk, and brings just the right amount of swagger and confidence in leadership to the role. It's very reminiscent of Shatner in the early episodes: complete confidence in the path he's undertaking, swagger and an aura of leadership, and (of course) constantly getting into fights that he can't win, but somehow does.

The rest of the cast is filled out spectactularly as well. My favorite character was Kirk, but as far as the supportign cast goes, I gotta give it to Scotty. Simon Pegg was hilarious, and brought a lot to Scotty's character. Karl Urban continues to impress as Bones, and Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto were great in their roles.

The plot was fun and enjoyable, and had the right balance between setting up the characters and their backstories and telling a story of its own. Too often movies, epecially reboots, don't strike this balance right, and fans and moviegoers alike suffer. The story also deftly strikes it's own place in the Star Trek canon without disturbing the movies and episodes that came before it (to tell more would be spoiling - just go see it!).

There's plently of nods and winks to Star Trek fans who grew up with the series, and the characters replace their counterparts well, but this movie has a decidely modern flair with all the bells and whistles Hollywood is capable of today. The CGI is top-quality (Industrial Light & Magic), and the fight choreography is superb. Some elements of the original series are gone; you won't see hokey fights and special effects here. But even for all the bells and whistles, the movie still retains the charm and allure that made it so popular.

Rating: 9/10