Here it is in a nutshell: A team of doctoral students, scientists and professional game developers have created a game ("Foldit") that has the player three-dimensionally fold proteins. This is opposed to the standard grid-based simulations (like Rosetta@home, which was developed by some of the same team members) in which people allow their computers to sift through data and transmit the results back to a central server. The idea of this model is that a complicated protein might take years of processing time to unravel, but "...people, using their intuition, might be able to home in on the right answer much more quickly."

David Baker, one of the lead scientists, says that "...the intuitive skills that make someone good at playing Foldit are not necessarily the ones that make a top biologist...I imagine that there's a 12-year-old in Indonesia who can see all this in their head."

I really think this is the way to solve complicated problems. I love the fact that they recognize that this type of spatial recognition is better done by a human brain. Heck, there is probably an autistic child that will be able to provide us with some amazing medical advances, if only given the chance. (As a side note, read this Wired article on the way an autistic mind works - it's eye-opening!).

For more information about the project, visit http://fold.it/. Maybe you are the one who can play this game...and someday win a Nobel Prize!

The first movie planned to hit the theaters is the "Iron Man" sequel, creatively titled "Iron Man 2" at the moment. The release date will be April 30, 2010. A "Thor" movie will be released in the summer of 2010 also. I like "Thor", but it's clearly a set up for something bigger.

The 'something bigger' comes in 2011. "The First Avenger: Captain America" will be released in early 2011. Now, although I agree with the ScreenRant guys that they should "...lose the front-half of that title...", I am really stoked for a Cap movie. "Captain America" is an iconic figure; sure, he will probably be fighting terrorism of some kind, but with Cap, it will be believable and interesting. I know that Cap can come off as corny or old-fashioned, but the incarnations in the last few years have all been very strong. Is it too early to call this the "Iron Man" of 2011?

I'll answer my own question and say - yeah, it's too early. The real "Iron Man" of 2011 will be "The Avengers"!!!

"The Avengers" movie has been highly anticipated for years. But, with the introduction of "Iron Man", "Thor" and "Captain America", they have the basis of the team. I can do without the addition of the "Hulk", as I started reading those books well after he was gone from the team. Notably, there is no mention of the "Hulk" in the press release, so Marvel may be thinking along the same lines. To be honest, I hope they skip forward in time a bit and complete the team with the "Scarlet Witch" and "Quicksilver" (or even Vision), rather than go with the more traditional starting team membership (i.e. "Hulk", "Ant-man" and the "Wasp"). But, that's just me.

Hopefully, this will be a franchise for years!

I know that this is a tough call. Notwithstanding my freakish love for "Supernatural", these are clearly two of the best shows on TV. How do you split them? When I started to look at it, I found that, in many ways, they are the same show. To wit:

• Both have a large core of central characters that have different opinions about the final goal.
• Both are confined to a small area ("Lost" - the island, "Battlestar Galactica" - the ship).
• Both are on the run from another group.
• Both have fantastic writing and acting.
• Both engender "What the heck is going on?" feelings.

For me, the honest truth is that my opinion seems to flip each week. If you had asked me which was best at the end of last season, I would have said "Battlestar Galactica", based on the belief that I thought they had a better idea of where the show was going and had a plan to wow us at the end of the series. I already know that the writers have the capability, since the end of the initial miniseries (remember the "So Say We All" scene) produced that 'wow' feeling for me.

But, after have watched the last few episodes of "Lost", I have just barely edged back into the '"Lost" is best' camp. "Lost" has tied events together amazingly well. I have renewed faith that every episode will be fantastic. I am back watching it on the same night that it broadcasts - and I just don't do that! So, for this week, my answer is "Lost" - and I am sticking to that, unless BSG gives me another 'wow!'.

Here are a few exerpts of the reviews that I found:

From AP Movie Critic Christy Lemire:

Much of the allure of "Iron Man" comes from the fact that we are indeed talking about a man — a real man who has lived a life and made mistakes and experienced regret — not some scrawny, teenage boy who received his superhero powers through a bite from a radioactive spider.

No offense to Spidey, the other Marvel Comics hero who's already provided billion-dollar summer blockbuster fodder. But there's just something more relatable about Tony Stark, even though he's a playboy industrialist of staggering wealth and arrogance.

And in the hands of Robert Downey Jr., he's absolutely riveting.

And, from FOX News:

Could you ever have imagined Robert Downey Jr. as a cartoon superhero? He’s not the first choice you’d think of, considering his fabled infamy. But the one-time Oscar nominee ("Chaplin") has always been a charmer even during the worst of times. In Marvel/Paramount’s "Iron Man," though, he’s a total winner. Because of him, the movie is going to be the first big summer blockbuster.

Oh, yes. For the action movie lover in me, they also quote that "Stuff gets blown up real good".

The only negative in either review is that the character buildup in the movie is *so* good that, when the movie finally gets down and dirty with the action, it feels "like a letdown". If that's the worst thing that can be said about "Iron Man", I think we can look forward to a great time.

So, from the SFSignal post, here are the movies!

May

• Iron Man (May 2)
• Speed Racer (May 9)
• Prince Caspian (May 16)
• Indy Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (May 22)

June

• The Happening (June 13)
• The Incredible Hulk (June 13)
• Wall-E (June 27)
• Wanted (June 27)

July

• Hancock (July 2)
• Hellboy II: The Golden Army (July11)
• Meet Dave (July 11)
• The Dark Knight (July 18)
• The X-Files (July 25)

August/

• The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (Aug 1)
• Babylon A.D. (Aug 29)

Now, SFSignal posed some questions in their post. Namely, they ask which of these movies will have the largest opening weekend, biggest overall run and which will be the biggest bomb.

Let's take the first one first. SFSignal believes "Iron Man" or "Indiana Jones" will be have the biggest opening weekend, with Indy just winning out. I have a feeling that "Speed Racer" will do better than expected, but it will be "Wall-E" that wins the opening weekend bonanza. However, I think that this year will show a more diverse dispersement of fans, i.e. several of these movies, including "Indy" and "Iron Man", will do very well. Still, a kids movie from Disney = instant box office, so that remains my answer.

Therefore, my answer to the second question (which movie is going to have to the biggest run?) is also "Wall-E". No surprise here - SFSignal also agrees with that assessment.

The last question is probably the toughest - which movie is going to bomb the hardest?

SFSignal goes with "Meet Dave", which is the Eddie Murphy vehicle in which aliens pilot his body around the city. Although I agree - "Meet Dave" will be terrible - it's too obvious. I think "The Incredible Hulk", " The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" and "The Happening" all have strong chances to bomb. Each of the preceding movies have burnt bridges among their expected fanbase. I don't think people have forgiven the first "Hulk" movie, so many of those folks won't go back (at least to see it at the movies). There have been too many "Mummy" movies, regardless of how likeable Brendan Fraser is. And, Indy is this year, which makes for bad comparisons in the genre. Finally, M. Night Shyamalan has lost it - he'd have to get strong word of mouth reviews for me to even consider seeing "The Happening" at the ol' cineplex. In short, I can't see any of these four movies becoming a success this summer.

There were a few things that I really liked about "The Sarah Connor Chronicles". Lena Headey captures the essence of the Sarah quite well. She is obsessed with protecting her son (just like the movies), but they have infused a little something more into her also. I also loved Summer Glau as the requisite protective Terminator - she's just awesome!

But, the main thing that makes me think this series will have some longevity is Thomas Dekker, who plays John Connor. In the movies, I was always disappointed that the future leader of the humanity was a screw-up. In this version, John is very intelligent and you can envision him developing into a leader of men.

So - I can't believe I am saying this, but - Yippee for FOX! On the fall slate, they have at least three planned series - "The Sarah Connor Chronicles", J.J Abrams' "Fringe" and Joss Whedon's "Dollhouse". That would make a pretty fine lineup!

So, I thought that I'd put together my reasoning behind my position. Here goes!

1. The Stylized Presentation

Have you noticed the ads for the movie? They are very bright and vibrant...maybe even 'glossy'. Whatever the technique, it looks different than the other movies out there (especially with the trend toward dark and gritty) and I like the difference.

2. The Wachowski's

Yup - those guys who did "The Matrix" and "V for Vendetta". If I know one thing about the Wachowski's, its that they don't particularly like to do what the audience expects. What could be the subtext in a "Speed Racer" movie? I'm not sure...which is exactly what they want.

3. Worst case

Honestly, how bad could it really be? If the Wachowski's do nothing but make a car chase movie, I suspect it would be a really, really good-looking car chase movie. With cars that jump. (By the way, Christina Ricci looks fantastic as "Trixie"). So, if that was it, I think I would be OK with it.

But, if the Wachowski's add a little more to the movie, a little context - maybe a little deeper meaning - then it could be a great one. So, I'm predicting that this movie gets 3-5 stars. I'd see a movie like that, wouldn't you?

Ronald D. Moore (better known for his work on "Battlestar Galactica") wrote the "Virtuality" pilot with another BSG alum, Michael Taylor. They will also act as producers (not a bad gig, eh?).

"Virtuality" will center on the crew of the starship Phaeton, which is on a 10-year exploratory mission. The hook of the series is that the ship has "state-of-the-art virtual reality modules that let the crew escape their constrained surroundings". The series will revolve around the consequences of a bug in the virtual reality system.

To me, this sounds fairly interesting! With Moore at the help, I would expect great things. The virtual reality concept should allow the writers to explore a ton of cool concepts without bogging down in the typical starship plots - i.e. moving the ship from planet to planet to find new environments. Kudos to FOX for granting this concept a chance!

I'll be keeping tabs on this one throughout the summer.

Here are my first impressions of the show:

The Good

I was pleasantly surprised by the work of Yasmin Paige, who plays Sarah's young sidekick 'Maria'. Even though the show is about Sarah Jane, Maria steals the focus of every scene she is in. She will be the 'companion' to Sarah Jane's version of the Doctor - and that's a good thing.

I also like that Sarah has a stash of alien gizmos and gadgetry. Her 'Sonic Lipstick' fits perfectly in the series, while the other gadgets (probably with the help of 'Luke', the other sidekick) will provide a good basis for Sarah to defeat the alien of the week.

The Not-So-Good

There was a significant amount of overacting. I know the show is trying to skew to a younger audience, but, at one point, I found myself waiting for the villain to go 'Mwahahahahaha!'. I suspect that it will work itself out, as the actors, writers and directors get a feel for each other.

I also thought the debut was a bit long. The premiere was ninety minutes and overall, it was paced fairly well. I did think there was some fluff added to extend it out, though. It was like they had a good seventy-five minutes or so of episode (commercials included, of course) and instead of cutting it down to an hour, they expanded it. Not a bad decision, but still noticeable.

The Bottom Line

It's pretty good. If the acting/writing levels out, I think "The Sarah Jane Adventures" will evolve into a gateway drug to "Doctor Who" - it has the same feel, just on a younger, toned down level.

"Battlestar Galactica" notwithstanding, I am not excited about anything that the 'ol TiVo is picking up these days. Not that the shows are *bad* - just not upper-tier quality.

Let's take "Reaper", for instance. I really liked the premiere. But, it has slowly faded into an amusing little time-waster, which is way below my initial expectations for the series. The writers finally have me a bit interested with the addition of the gay demons (Steve and Tony)...but they are not enough for me to really care if it will be cancelled or re-upped for next year.

Same goes for "New Amsterdam". There is something there - but I am just not invested in the character of "John Amsterdam". I keep watching, but mostly because there is nothing better on.

Things are looking up, however. "Battlestar Galactica" is back. And, on April 18th, the SCI FI channel brings back it's "SCI-Fridays" concept with the return with "Doctor Who" and the debut of "The Sarah Jane Adventures" (both of which are produced by Russell T Davies - which explains my enthusiam for "Sarah Jane"). Then, we get another episode of "Lost"....

So, it feels like we are in a TV lull - but rescue is near! The new round of shows can't come quick enough for me!

The SCI FI Channel website has a ton of videos up, including the entire episode available online. I am going to watch "What The Frak Is Going On?" in particular, as it is an eight minute review of the first three seasons. And, with as long as this show has been between seasons, a recap is an absolute necessity.

I also read a quick blurb from Michael Ausiello on the TV Guide site. Although he seemed to be contractually bound not to say anything specific about the episode, he did mention that the last 15 minutes were very, very good.

Consider my expectation level turned up to 11!

The news? "Knight Rider" has been green-lit as a full-time fall series by NBC.

In actuality, it was pretty obvious. The ratings were extremely high (the movie "delivered the highest 18-49 rating for any made-for-television movie, multiple-part movie or theatrical film on any network since March 6, 2005) and it has some coolness factor.

However, Vic over at Screen Rant (who I usually agree, btw) makes a good point that the rating may have been skewed by simple curiousity. The thought is that a lot of people know K.I.T.T and Hasselhoff and tuned in just to see how it would go. The post-reviews were not horrible, but not glowing either.

For my part, I fall into the "fairly pessimistic" category. There is a bit of potential, but those first few episodes will have to blow me away before I think that "Knight Rider" will survive the first fall cancellations.

The full list can be found at the AICN or Empire sites. However, what struck me about the list was the strong representation of Sci-Fi shows scattered throughout the ranking. Just take a look:

#50-41: Quantum Leap, Veronica Mars (honorary - she said 'Frak!' in an episode), Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Farscape, Star Trek

#40-31: Star Trek: The Next Generation, Alias (somewhat honorary...but there was Rambaldi), Babylon 5

#30-21: Red Dwarf, Futurama, Twin Peaks, Angel

#20-11: Doctor Who, Heroes, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica

and...in the top 10:

#9. The X-Files
#5. Lost
#2. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (totally deserved!)
(Just for the record, #1 was "The Simpsons")

Although I can quibble over the order (how is "Heroes" higher than "Doctor Who", the original "Star Trek" or "Angel"?) and some big omissions (not Sci-Fi, but M.A.S.H?), the main fact is that about 40% of the best TV *ever* was in our genre. That's big.

I feel like a proud papa. Now, I just wish the networks would read this type of list and let a few of the Sci-Fi shows mature. Where would "Firefly" rank if it was not cancelled after half a season?

First, rest in peace Arthur C. Clarke. We lost a great one last week.

And, unfortunately, we also officially lost "Jericho" too. Strangely enough, I am only mildly disappointed about the cancellation. I guess the whole saga of 'canceled-not canceled-strike delayed-short season' tempered my expectations. I really wasn't surprised at all. I know the producers are trying to keep the series alive (perhaps on another network), but I'll believe it when I see it (and post about it, of course!).

Finally, did you see the USA Today article where George Lucas says his new 'Indiana Jones' is 'just a movie'? George sounds like he really is trying to temper expectations for the sure-fire hit. Here's the quote:

"When you do a movie like this, a sequel that's very, very anticipated, people anticipate ultimately that it's going to be the Second Coming," Lucas says. "And it's not. It's just a movie. Just like the other movies. You probably have fond memories of the other movies. But if you went back and looked at them, they might not hold up the same way your memory holds up."

Now, I just re-watched "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" with my kids and it held up just fine. So, I can only assume that Lucas is a bit gun shy after those "Star Wars" prequels. I am still hoping for a great movie (and I am absolutely going), but this article does make me think a bit.