There are still some practical problems like getting a machine to the end of the Universe by 2200 (what kind of a date is 2199 anyways). That would certainly require a certain leap in technology. One in fact reaching beyond the current laws of physics as we understand them. Certainly possible (even though I have no substantial facts to base that belief on) but it's also a pretty giant bump in the road to climb what would currently be best described as an eternal mountain.

In fact the inevitable omnipresence of the singularity speaks more against the theory than for it. We can pretty much assume that while difficult, there is no reason that life shouldn't be able to evolve elsewhere. Simply due to the almost infinite amount of places where it could occur. And while our galaxy isn't exactly young it's certainly not the oldest either, and Earth itself is about middle aged for our galaxy. Meaning there could very realistically exist, or have existed civilizations billions of years older than ours. The fact that we don't see this singularity anywhere else either means that we are alone (possible, but I struggle to see the purpose), that there are limitations to space travel (meaning colonization on a multigalactic scale would be extremely time consuming) or simply that something else happens before we reach the singularity or as a result of it. Like ascension to another plane or total annihilation then reboot.

But no matter how we look at it, our current technological development is so great that something mind shattering is bound to happen eventually. You posting this made me think of 2012 again. That would certainly fit in the scheme of things, and given the probabilities we've talked about, a somewhat more likely solution to our predicament. Whatever that entails.

I sometimes ask my friends, if you were given a craft capable of traveling the stars and galaxies, instantaneously, but you could never return to earth. Would you take it? I can wholeheartedly answer yes. Curiosity and the need to explore encompass everything, at least to me.

If the result is an independent omnipotent AI I certainly don't want that to happen, cause the logicial conclusion to that I think would be very Agent Smith like and the AI deciding producing copies of itself while wiping humans would be the economic way to go. And I couldn't with my hand on the chest say it would be terribly wrong in doing so.

Brain enhancing chips and prostethics more apt than a human limb is already in play. That's why I see the rich and powerful getting a head start on the rest of us. And in that case we would be crossing the Rubicon for real since I think the advantage gained is so great that the rest of us would be at their utter mercy, possibly forever.

Then again, these are mind crunching developments we are talking about here, so I could very well be looking at this through a fast redundant paradigm. Either way, friction is all good. Call me crazy, but 65 years and counting is starting to become a bit of a drag. So bring it on.

As to this being evidence of intelligent life one way or the other, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch. Relatively speaking the jump from radio technology to space travel has been like a small tap of the foot. Who's to say we won't be using a completely new form of communication in just a few decades? If a few hundred years is all a civilization spends on radio and the like it's not strange at all that we haven't heard anything.

But the fact is that we have actually heard something. There was something called the "wow signal" in the 70s, and there might have been another occurence at another time. That signal was definitely not of natural origin, at least not any nature we've yet to discover. That might sound a little thin, but if you look at human history I think it's beginning to get pretty damn obvious that there was some funny business going on in early human history. Couple that with modern sightings and testimony and sheer mathematical probability. I mean Jesus, there are 200 billion stars in our galaxy, of which 50 billion is estimated to have an earth sized planet. And nobody knows how many galaxies there except that it's a hell of a lot more than 200 billion.

So we're talking 25.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 candidates, at a minimum! Even the FED has yet to produce such a number (though they're trying their very best!). You really think we're that special? Take a look in the mirror and then ask the question again.

It is a cartoon! How serious do you want to get?

I enjoy both Burton and Nolans efforts. There's a significant difference in style, but all in all I wouldn't say Nolan's are really darker or more serious. I probably prefer Nolan though since he's more apt with mainstream material. But I must say I find myself missing the stunning visuals of Burton sometimes. Nolan can get a little bland.

Even Schumacher's aren't terrible (meaning watchable and better than utter junk like Daredevil, Catwoman, GI Joe etc.), especially the first one.

Whatever happens in 3 I just hope they cut down on the moral procastrination. You're making a PG13 for christ sake, we all know you're not really taking this seriously so stop pretending.

Deserve's got nothing to do with it. He's an asshole and a coward. Those kind of characters tend to catch some shit.

I'm not ignoring his good qualities, but I won't use them as an excuse either.