Our story: Bikini Leia and her stunt double nap in the Tatooine sunshine

Your best comment: Brings back memories...I was actually on the set when it was near my hometown of Yuma, AZ (filmed at Dunes in California nearby) when I was about 8. Although I don't remember this...

Sure was nice was the whole Star Wars franchise was "simpler", am I right?—Iceman_Yuma

Our story: 'Gandalf' has read the Hobbit script and tells us about it

Your best comment: Since 1992 I've had Gandalf tattooed on my left arm and Smaug on my right... Do you think I'm psyched?!?— Tolkien Fan

Our story: Ouch! The New York Times brutally slams V

Your best comment: 1935: Sinclair Lewis writes "It Can't Happen Here", a political novel about fascism taking over the United States.

Is there any wonder now WHY the NYT is attacking the movie?—kmkahuna

Our story: TV ratings: Every fall sci-fi show compared by number of viewers

Your best comment: I've seen a lot of comments here about Defying Gravity. Wow what a big miss. If you're hung up on the stupid advertising that this is Grey's Anatomy in space don't be. It was a dumb advertising idea and it's completely wrong.

Defying Gravity is a terrific show and it would be a shame if all of the scifi geeks out there (I include myself as a geek) ignored it because it was advertised in a stupid way.—Trixie

Our story: 12 big-ass spoilers for True Blood season 3

Your best comment: I wonder if the writers and creators realise the majority of the fans of the eric/sookie relationship actually have the same views as they do?... I am a fan of eric and sookie relationship. I would like to see the show explore this. But like what others have said. I dont want them to turn into bill and sookie. And not straight away either. Its not organic for one thing, and frankly. I am patient person and would prefer they developed eric and sookie over a period of time. Just like the books.

The whole draw card to the eric and sookie relationship is not the romance. Its the tension. I just want to see more interaction between eric and sookie. Whether that is erics constant teasing, sookie hating his guts. Getting on each others nerves, or the sexual tension that has been set up cleverly by sookies vivid fantasies. I dont care what they show, I just want to see more interaction. Its interesting and damn funny to watch.—whatthehell

Our story: Bryan Singer's Battlestar movie allegedly under way

Your best comment: Setting aside the issue of which TV series was better, this seems like such a ridiculous idea just from a marketing perspective. We just finished up with several years of BSG on television, and now these movie execs believe there will be a substantial audience flocking to the cinema to see yet another take on this story? Films like this cost _a lot_ of money, and it's hard to believe this will be much of a draw for the general public. Even if all the Larson fans in the world lined up and saw this twice, I doubt it would end up in the black. I'm pretty sure most of the Moore fans will skip it altogether.

This strikes me as an ill-advised and financially risky attempt by Larson to reclaim BSG from Moore/Eick and their (to him) morally-depraved and depressingly-dark depiction of the story. Whether audiences in a post-9/11 world can look at Larson's squeaky-clean and cheerful take on the survivors of a genocidal campaign and do anything but laugh . . . well, I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.—Farragut Jones

Our story: How J.J. Abrams snuck Wesley Crusher into Star Trek!

Your best comment:I went to PAX09 this September and had the pleasure of sitting next to Mr. Wheaton's table at a restaurant, on one of the evenings of the convention.

It was very disappointing.—WilWheatonSux

Our story: Lord of the Rings' dwarf warrior says no to Hobbit

Your best comment: in my opinion this is a good thing. why do the same old thing with the same old actors we've seen in the other films. if we wanted the other films, we can watch the other films. i personally want to see something of the depth of the world that Tolkien brought to life in his books--and you just can't do that if you have the same actors playing multiple parts. Gandalf, Bilbo and some of the Elves makes sense, but Gloin does not.—Cyrus

Our story: We finally discover who dies on Heroes

Your best comment: Season 1
You Killed Sylar....You Bastards

Season 4
You Killed oh.. to hell with it..— Wolftech

Our story: Why Battlestar kicks Star Wars' ass!

Your best comment: Why oh why must we insist on comparing things. Can't we just be happy we have two great SciFi epics and STFU!

Also, for all those here who are complaining about the God cop-out ending in BSG I have one word for you - Midichlorians! I'd rather have god be the over all answer to things than a microorganisim.—G Force

Our story: Joss Whedon wants to buy Terminator! Read his offer here

Your best comment: This TSCC/Dollhouse war is exactly why I'm ashamed to be a sci-fi fan. All these Terminator fans act as if Joss Whedon had some malicious hand to play when it was the network that killed TSCC. They may have made a wrong decision in picking Dollhouse to continue, but by no means does that logically lead to Joss Whedon having the blame squarely on his shoulders.

What is wrong with science fiction fans stopping the petty infighting and bickering? What is wrong with being a unified front asking for better programming and less wrestling, Mansquito, and outright embarrassments to the genre we all love?—Mike

Our story: The real V you never saw: No aliens and no spaceships

Your best comment: The sign of a good story is often pulled from current events. Star Trek TOS was often based on the headlines of the day. The Forever War was an allegory for Viet Nam. It is often what makes a good story. Reaching into the readers heart to illicit an empathetic response.

Completely disavowing the opposition is simple cowardice. It is fear that perhaps, just perhaps, they are right in some way. Fear that our own point of view is not as strong as we had thought. Fear of being wrong. Fear is the mirror of ones soul. Anyone who feels the need to belittle another, simply because they have an opposing point of view is a coward. Cowardice is easy on the internet, no one can confront you in person. Its the safety of not being known. That does not change the cowardice being shown. It just make it harder to identify the coward.—TearEmUp

Our story: What even Roland Emmerich won't destroy: an Islamic landmark

Your best comment: I'm amused by the number of hypocritcal comments in response to this article. The amount of ignorant stereotypes here is absolutely apalling. It's pretty sad how people stereotype everyone in the Islamic community based on actions made by INDIVIDUALS, and not Islam as a whole. Every religion, group, organization have extremists. If I'm correct, there was also a group called the KKK, and it still exists as of today. But simply because of actions made by the members of the KKK, I don't go around judging and bashing every white person I see. That would be a disgusting thing to do. It's sad to see that ignorant, uneducated people are continuing to increase in numbers and deteriorating the future advancement of our society.

By the way, I'm a teenager and I know well enough (unlike most of you) on how to express my opinion without incoherently bashing on other religions or groups.—fmorsh

The Polar Express already felt like Robert Zemeckis' attempt to create a modern-day Christmas Carol, so in a way it's unsurprising that he would eventually adapt the actual story into a similar film. At the same time, however, there's no getting around the fact that Dickens' story has been adapted and updated more than almost any in movie history, which begs the question why now is the right time to do it again, and with this technology. Cynically, it seems like Disney probably wanted a new "definitive" adaptation for their catalog of titles (their previous version was a 1983 animated adaptation starring Scrooge McDuck), and Zemeckis was the obvious choice for director since he could bring a sufficient amount of energy and technical prowess to such an effort.

Unsurprisingly, however, even if that was the reason, Disney was right: While there's certainly a contemporary, kinetic energy Zemeckis brings to the film, he also gives it emotional depth, thanks also to Carrey in the central role. In particular, Zemeckis seems to enjoy trampling the line between kid-friendly and just plain freaky entertainment, and he renders a journey for Scrooge that's extremely intense; the flying sequences, much like the theme-park segments of Polar Express, are dizzyingly exhilarating, especially writ large in 3-D on a massive IMAX screen, and the Ghost of Christmas Future is genuinely terrifying, even for adults. At the same time, he manages to make the character's cathartic transformation rewarding and powerful, at least in the way that we feel compelled to share in his newfound exuberance and generosity, and manages not to succumb to treacle even in a story that is exceedingly susceptible to it.

Carrey clearly relishes the opportunity to play so many different roles in one movie, and he makes the most out of each characterization. That said, my favorite is his flame-headed Ghost of Christmas Past, who impishly flickers and dodges just like a real candle, except with Carrey's complete, hilarious self-awareness at the center of its febrile unpredictability. But the film gains a fascinating momentum as the story proceeds, jumping from one set piece to the next, evolving in its visual and conceptual complexity, and Zemeckis' steady hand is the main force that keeps it from becoming too wild, too weird or just too familiar.

For example, during the "Christmas Present" sequence, the floor of Scrooge's house essentially turns to glass, rising into the air and hovering ominously over the locations where lessons will eventually be imparted; it's comforting and unnerving at the same time, but completely unique visually. And even though Scrooge's transformation into a dormouse-sized fugitive being hunted by Christmas Future and its black mares occasionally veers into unnecessarily volatile action, especially for a Dickens adaptation, the spectral physicality of the ghost is ominous and menacing, but it shapes and steers Scrooge's eventual realization rather than merely being an empty action set piece.

As for folks who still have issues with motion capture and the glazed look in characters' eyes, much of that has long since been resolved, and even though there are certainly some occasionally inauthentic gestures and behavior, the textures and movement are truly better than ever. But ultimately, A Christmas Carol manages to be more than a technical achievement; even if it's not the watershed moment in moviemaking that its predecessor was, it's worthwhile entertainment. Moreover, it's one of the more remarkable adaptations of this particular Dickens work to date, which is why it should win you over whether you think that the story has been sapped of its effectiveness or still has life left in it to explore.

Here are nine legendary spoilers for the Seeker's second season, along with hot new guest stars (spoilers ahead!):

Someone new joins the team, and Kahlan's going to have issues.

"There is disorder and disarray among the D'Haran's and the Mord'Sith in the absence of a strong man to unite them," Biller said. "There is a lot of jockeying for power and position, and Cara [the Mord'Sith who helped Richard kill Rahl in the season-one finale] ends up making a very tense alliance with Richard and Kahlan, ... which Kahlan [Bridget Regan] is not happy about."

Tabrett Bethell joins the cast as Cara.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Charisma Carpenter guest-stars.

She's in the season premiere, and she looks hot.

Remember those skin-tight Mord'Sith outfits? Well, Carpenter's more than looking the part. "She plays a Mord'Sith, who clashes with Cara and ultimately with Richard," said Biller. BTW, you'll want to check out the knock-down drag-out fight between Carpenter and a naked Cara.

There will be plenty of other hot lady guest stars this season.

Star Trek Enterprise's Jolene Blalock ("T'Pol") will be recurring as Sister Nicci, a Sister of the Dark, and Jessica Marais's Denna will return to spin Richard's head around again.

"Denna has found a new tantalizing and very profitable way of making a living now that Rahl's empire has crumbled, but what we also will realize is that this is just a front for a grander plan she has to take over Dahara," said Biller.

"The show is way hotter and sexier this year."

"There's an incredibly hot and sexy introduction of Cara," said Biller. "It has a higher degree of epic action than we've shown before on the show. ... It's going to put Richard right square in the middle, in between former adversaries and former allies. Richard is going to have to make a very, very difficult decision about who he is and what his quest is going to be. It sets up the whole quest for the second season that Richard is going to be on with Kahlan and Cara. It sets up some real tension between Kahlan and Cara, who don't like each other very much and don't trust each other, but by the end of that episode, for reasons the audience will discover if they watch the episode, both will be by his side."

Without someone in charge, there's chaos.

"People are rising up and trying to claim power in the wake of the vacuum that's been created by the absence of Darken Rahl. Richard is going to be confronted with what happens to Rahl's armies. Now that Rahl is gone, what happens to the Mord'Sith? Now that Rahl is gone, what happens to the people that used to follow Richard as the Seeker that were fighting for the resistance? Are they all good? Are they all bad? What are the repercussions of the aftermath of a war, and refugees, war crimes, all sorts of things like that?" said Biller.

Last season's battle between Richard and Rahl screwed up the world more than just a little bit.

Richard, Kahlan, and Zed (Bruce Spence) will discover that "the powerful magic that collided when Richard killed Darken Rahl tore a rift in the veil between the world of the living and the underworld, and from the underworld, which is ruled by the Keeper, new and dangerous threats to Richard and to all life itself is going to emerge," he said.

There's going to be war.

"The keeper of the underworld is now waging war on the land of the living, and Richard is going to have to fight that war. He's going to have to fight the creatures and minions of the underworld that are trying to essentially destroy all life, and while he's doing that he's on a quest to find the Stone of Tears. Legend has it the Stone of Tears is an ancient object that will heal the rift and once again protect the world of living," said Biller. "Richard's going to come up against our coolest and scariest creature that we've ever done. An unkillable creature." How do you kill and unkillable creature? "You'll have to watch," he said with a laugh.

Richard and Zedd will discover more about their own past.

Richard will learn more about the mysterious circumstances of his birth. "He's going to find out that he's not exactly who he thinks he is," said Biller. Meanwhile, Zedd is going to "learn secrets from his past that he didn't know about. We're going to find out more about Zedd's history, some of which is dark."

The new season will riff on the book.

"As we did in season one, we're using some of the tentpoles and some of the mythology and some of the characters from the second book, but we are riffing on that book, as we did in season one. We're creating lots of stand-alone stories that fit within that overall season-long quest. So it'll be a combination, as it was in the first season, of characters and elements from the book and those that are either of our own invention or our riff, if you will, on some of Terry Goodkind's mythology and characters."

Are you ready for more Legend of the Seeker?

Singer is reportedly working with Glen Larson, the producer behind the original 1970s Battlestar series:

Now that pre-production has started, any rumors that Singer's next project was going to be "X" related (as in X-Men) has been put to rest, along with any shot he had of helming another Superman flick. There's been no word if Moore will be involved in the re-reboot, yet given the rumored "rocky" relationship between Larson and Moore, it seems unlikely.

Stay tuned for more ...

Unfortunately, Jovovich isn't running away from zombies in scanty outfits, as in the Resident Evil series. In this film she's playing a psychiatrist named Dr. Abigail Tyler, who is tenaciously fighting the idea that her husband was killed and her daughter was taken by creatures from another planet.

It's not until well into the movie that she actually discusses contact of the "fourth kind." Of course, we all know the stages: the first kind is a sighting of a UFO, the second kind is evidence on the ground or something left behind, the third kind is actually contact, and the fourth kind is abduction. These are events that supposedly all happened during a week in October 2000.

When you do a little bit of research on the Internet and Google "Dr. Abigail Tyler" or even Nome's UFO sightings, not much comes up. You find out that this is not a celebrated case by ufologists, and it isn't big in the lore of abduction theorists, and so the movie loses its frightening aspect and becomes an oddly irritating series of re-enacted scenes with lame dialogue by characters who are afraid of an owl outside their windows.

The once-realistic bio page that was put up on GoDaddy not long ago has since been taken down, perhaps because it's not really legal to pretend like you're a doctor.

Offering the audience the chance to "make the decision yourself about what really happened," this pseudo-documentary style of presenting information shows a very skinny Dr. Tyler with a pale face, dark circles under her eyes and straggly hair. That woman is shown in supposedly real interviews and hypnotic sessions that are then re-created by Jovovich and the more recognizable cast members such as Elias Koteas and Will Patton. Sometimes the bad video, or the police car footage, or the audio tapes are shown in split screen (or even four-screen) shots that have the incidents being shown in the real situation and in the re-enactment.

The movie begins with Dr. Tyler (both the "real" and the Jovovich kind) shown under hypnosis as she recalls an attack on her husband one night after they make love, but she can't see the face of the culprit. Then she discovers that her husband has been researching an ancient language, and they have been interviewing patients in Nome who all talk about an owl that is keeping them awake at night.

Suddenly, one of the patients has a breakthrough and breaks a lamp in the process, when under hypnosis he realizes that the owl is not really an owl but a visitor who is at the front door, but oh no, it's horrible, it's terrible, it's too scary, he can't see it, he can't describe it. He'll wait until the next session.

Instead, he goes home that night and kills his family. That sequence is perhaps the most disturbing, because there is pretty realistic blurred footage of the cops' arrival at the scene and a guy boarded up inside a house with his family at gunpoint, shouting and shooting at the police. It's intense as the actors do their own version of the grainy cop footage on the screen and he calls for his psychiatrist.

Another one of the scariest moments is when Dr. Tyler's secretary is unnerved about transcribing an audio version of her notes and there's a scuffle and voices that the doctor doesn't remember. There's a chilling wail on the tape and unearthly voices in what turns out to be an ancient language.

This seems to be a trend in movies these days to blur "real stories" with fiction, much as in The Blair Witch Project and The Strangers. This movie takes an extra step into outright fraud, however, by even constantly reminding us (in scrolls) that this is the real recording, and this is the actor playing the real person, etc.

Yet, it's scary, not because things jump out at you or there's a chase, but in that bone-chillingly haunting way.

The unsung hero in all this is the uncredited actress who is the "real" Dr. Abigail Tyler in the interview footage. She's the one who deserves an Oscar.

Even though we'll miss the conflicted character and the talented Kayla Ewell, it was a good death that will have major repercussions for the series. Here's six reasons we think this development kicked ass:

1. It's about time someone we cared about died on the show. Let's face it, people have been dying right and left on the series thanks to Damon's bloodthirsty ways. And having the hottest vamp on television turn Vicki into a vampire because he was bored was SO Damon. So we loved it, even though we didn't love Vicki dying, especially since she and Jeremy finally truly got together. We liked Vicki, and we'll miss her. But you can't have people dying every episode and not have someone important die eventually. This death had the ring of truth.

2. Elena finally knows, and it's a bad thing for her. OK, we've been waiting for this since the series began, especially because Elena is not an idiot. But knowing your boyfriend is a vampire is entirely different from being dragged into his twisted world and having to lie to EVERYONE about what really happened. Her old boyfriend, Matt (Zach Roerig), whom she still adores, was Vicki's brother. What kind of betrayal is it not to tell him? Elena's innocence has been ripped away, and there's no going back for her character.

3. Damon and Stefan have to work together. For the first time, the brothers have to work together to solve the problem that Damon created. Damon even saved Stefan's life after he took a wood bullet and was almost staked by one of the townsfolk council people. Seeing Damon rip the bullet out of Stefan's chest and tell him that no one else was going to kill him told us volumes about their relationship. Almost as much as learning that the mysterious Katherine turned them both into vampires in the 1800s. There's more to that story, and we can't wait to see more.

4. It's not going to be that easy to cover up Vicki's death. While no one will be surprised that Vicki has left town, a lot of people are going to ask questions. Especially since she vanished right after three people were killed in a "drug deal" gone bad, according to the story the council people concocted. We know Vicki's brother, mother and friends, and they won't want to accept that she's gone. The story that Elena cooked up to ease her brother's pain, that Vicki left town, will have repercussions, and questions will linger. That's something that hasn't happened so far in a town ravaged by "animal attacks."

5. Killing Vicki makes Stefan more interesting. If Vicki was going to die, who didn't think Damon would be the one to do it? Stefan's the ultimate good guy, handsome and a bit too serious. He doesn't go around killing people, at least not anymore. The fact that he killed Vicki, rather than try to stop her attack on Elena, spoke volumes about who he is and what he's willing to do to protect Elena, and it tells us he may not be as nice a guy as we think he is.

6. Damon, for just one moment, does the right thing. When Damon offers to wipe Jeremy's memory for Elena, what's she supposed to say? Thanks? One of the reasons Damon is so very fascinating is that he's a totally evil, immoral sociopath, and yet ... we like him. He's funny and very rarely does the right thing. This time he stepped up to help Elena when he didn't have to. We love that.

And a bonus reason why we think The Vampire Diaries is only going to get more interesting...

7. A new vampire is coming to town. Stefan's going to get a big surprise on his 162nd birthday, when Vampire Lexi (Arielle Kebbel) blows into town this week on "162 Candles." No doubt she'll stir up the pot, especially for Elena. Meanwhile, Damon offers to help Sheriff Forbes (Marguerite MacIntyre), and that can't be a good thing.

So should Vicki have been killed off? What do you think?

In particular, they find themselves dressed like doctors on an episode Dr. Sexy M.D.: think Grey's Anatomy, which airs opposite Supernatural and has been trouncing it in the ratings.

In short order, they jump channels to everything from a bad Japanese game show to a genital herpes commercial to a sitcom. When the fallen angel Castiel (Misha Collins) pops in and is quickly dispatched, Sam and Dean discover that their old nemesis, the Trickster (Richard Speight Jr.), might be the guy behind the channel-changing.

Among the treats to savor in this sendup of all things TV:

A faux product placement for Smeat.

Sam and Dean as McDreamy and McSteamy.

It's an animal thing. ArisuCheddar at ABC.com reminds us that animals appear to be relevant to the flash-forwards and a possible indicator that this has happened before. Birds have fallen from the sky or crashed into windows, although Arisu points out that the kangaroo seems pretty alert. It doesn't look as if it just woke up from a hopping accident. "I see it as just another indicator that this was a concerted effort and a deliberate act," ArisuCheddar writes.

The kangaroo is a symbol that the future is not set. ABC.com poster yoda2714 speculated that the hopping kangaroo should clue viewers in that the flash-forwards were just a jump in consciousness. The characters should stop worrying about the future, because it was just a one-time hop. "It could mean that continuity is not possible," yoda2714 writes. "i.e., there will be no connection from 10.6.09 to 4.29.10 because of the 'hopping' effect of the FFs. Or stated more simply, there may be no in-between in terms of 10.6.09 and 4.29.10, just those two points."

It's a play on words. Mizzllat on TV.com recalls the (disproven) legend of Captain Cook's exploring Australia, at which time "kangaroo" meant "I do not understand you." So the kangaroo could just represent strange things that can't be understood, if the producers are following outdated definitions.

Kangaroos from hell! Nixie_Knox on ABC.com takes Australian wordplay a step further. Since kangaroos are Australian, from the land "down under," "This can be a play on words to represent the 'underworld' and can be symbolic of hell coming to Earth," Nixie writes. "Or perhaps the kangaroo could represent the concept of a demon come to earth."

A mad teleportation experiment caused the blackouts. Nypdretired02 at ABC.com thinks that what caused the blackouts was a science experiment gone wrong. If that experiment involved teleportation, that could result in a kangaroo transporting to L.A. instead from its native Outback. That would also hint at why people's thoughts jumped to April 29.

The kangaroo caused the blackouts. Tvlurk.com poster flashart has a similar "mad experiment" theory. Whether it's teleportation or not, something left a door in time and space open. That's where flashart thinks the kangaroo walked through to get to L.A. "Trace the kangaroo's path and find out where the door is," flashart writes.

Australia did it!. Speaking of all these evil experiments, whatever had a side effect of sending a kangaroo to L.A. must have originated in Australia. Chinese experiments would've sent pandas to L.A. instead. Kris, posting at TVSquad, joked that either Australia or the local zoo is involved, but Kris may be onto something with Oz.

It's connected to Dylan. LOSTfantasygirl at ABC.com noticed that young Dylan (Ryan Wynott) had a stuffed kangaroo on his dresser when Lloyd (Jack Davenport) went to his son's room. Dylan already found the Benford house from his flash-forward. Maybe the kid will make the kangaroo connection too.

It's all in Mark's head. Has anyone else actually acknowledged the kangaroo? Mark (Joseph Fiennes) saw it downtown and then again in the suburbs—although Aaron (Brian F. O'Byrne) and Charlie (Lennon Wynn) were with Mark the second time, so they noticed it too, right?

It just broke out of the zoo. There was a lot of chaos during the blackouts. Goyer said that he imagined an animal transport van crashing and freeing the kangaroo. Other literal-minded viewers like LostEmissary at Flashforwardtv.com suggest a zookeeper blacking out and leaving the cage open. Heck, if a plane crashed into a zoo it could have knocked the cages open, too.

It's not a kangaroo at all. Australian poster bookwormy342 at TV.com claims we're all wrong. It's not a kangaroo, it's a wallaby. Great, now we have to start all over.

But it's these two against-type performances that fortify the film's oddball appeal: Spader's wincing smile, so often used as a deliverer of condescension, now registers each larger-than-life revelation with goofy acceptance, while Russell's steely wildness has been molded into melancholy pragmatism, providing the fantastic escapism of the plot with a palpable emotional reality.

That said, the movie is a fairly perfect combination of light touches and genuine intensity; for every moment of banana-peel humor, there's a suspenseful showdown, and vice versa. As a pastiche of David Lean-style epics, familiar science fiction texts, mystical mumbo-jumbo, and breezy action, Stargate really gratifies in the most generalized way possible, which is precisely why it continues to resonate, spawning an entire universe of mythology and storytelling that spans TV series, comic books, and video games.

While the film has been released a few times on DVD, the new Blu-ray betters its predecessors primarily with bonus content, since the presentation of the film itself often leaves much to be desired. In particular, there's a remarkable amount of flicker in many of the images on screen, which is something that, color quality or grain detail aside, should be absent in high definition. Unfortunately, this doesn't even refer to the effects shots, which are notoriously susceptible to visual deterioration since older films required multiple passes on the same source material to achieve a specific effect; rather, even in dialogue scenes there's a faintness and that flicker of digital information that suggests the transfer was prepared for standard rather than high-definition presentation.

That said, the remainder of the extras are fully satisfying: the disc features both the theatrical cut and an extended edition that was released a few years ago, as well as a commentary track with Emmerich and writer-producer Dean Devlin, an interactive trivia challenge, a picture-in-picture presentation that provides interview footage and production images, a three-part documentary about the film's making, legacy and impact, and a new gag reel. Actually, to be fair, the gag reel isn't particularly satisfying; rather than compiling flubs or mistakes, its' one extended take where members of the cast and crew wreak havoc on set, and while it's kind of fun, so little of it works (a guy with a chainsaw fails to chop Emmerich's director's chair in half) that it's more a waste of time than a filler of it.

Otherwise, the documentaries detail the way in which Emmerich and Devlin were still largely unknown quantities in Hollywood when they started on the film, how they modeled it on so many of the films and franchises that inspired them, and then how they translated that into something that eventually became a sleeper hit upon its release in 1994. While there are no particularly shocking revelations to be found, the majority of the information is presented briskly and proves entertaining even to a casual fan of the film.

The rest of the extras are essential the same as in previous editions, including a "making of" documentary and a featurette entitled "Is There A Stargate?" But ultimately the only shortcoming of this collection of content is the presentation of the film itself—although to be fair, it's hardly prohibitive for folks who might be buying the movie for the first time, and otherwise looks okay in terms of clarity and cleanliness.

Overall, however, Stargate 15th Anniversary Special Edition is an engaging collection based on the strength of the film's story and the substance of the bonus content, even if the way it's presented sometimes leaves something to be desired.