I have railed a number of times on this blog about the penchant for Hollywood to remake things and completely ignore the original concept which made whatever it was worth thinking about remaking in the first place.
When I first saw that Land of the Lost was being remade, I thought it might make for a decent franchise. And then the rumors and hires started-- it became a Will Ferrell family comedy. And then I started seeing the first promos and previews and my fears were realized; this movie was so far away from the original concept of Land of the Lost as it could be and still call itself that.
Just in case my memory for the original was faulty, Sci-Fi had a marathon of ALL of the episodes. I caught a number of them; yep, as I remembered, the original was a "dramatic" children's story about a family unit being lost in a land where dinosaurs threatened them, Sleastaks wanted to kill them and take over, and strange obelisks could manipulate time, space, and the weather. Although there was humor in it, it was played straight for the most part and there was always tension.
The preliminary results are in and the Will Ferrell movie made about 19.5 million in its opening weekend. About 10-20 million off what the studio anticipated and well below what Will Ferrell's movies usually do.
And I suspect I know why: had they named this something else and not had Sleastaks in it, I bet it would have done okay. Or, if they had named it Land of the Lost and kept it true to the essence of the original (a family in peril, trying to survive) it would have done okay. But history keeps proving that if Hollywood makes comedies out of what were 70s dramas and action TV shows, the BO for each gets progressively worse.
I know that Hollywood thinks the average movie-goer is stupid. And sometimes I agree. However, you can't keep fooling them in the same way and expect to succeed long term. The first Charlies Angel movie did well because it was a new take on the light comedy/drama of the original. The second didn't do as well because it relied too much on kitsch and lost the fine balance. Dukes of Hazzard and Starskey and Hutch didn't even pretend to be like the original TV shows. And each did progressively worse.
The other thing that Hollywood forgets is that the audience likes sequels, prequels, and remakes... to a point. This summer may be horrible due to the large number of remakes that, frankly, few people care about. And I'll I'm seeing and reading is about the movies and shows being options for future remakes and reimaginings. Hollywood is forgetting that you need some originality to spice things up and keep the audience coming back.
I am absolutely tickled pink that LotL seems to have failed miserably and, if it succeeds at the 50%+ drop I expect next week, may not break $60 million. This sends a clear sign to Hollywood (again, along with Terminator: Salvation) that sequels, remakes, and other rehashes need to be carefully thought out and considered before investing in. Stay true to the original concept. If you alienate the core audience, you will suffer and die a painful BO death.
Thank god for Up! Here's original, quality storytelling that is making money hand-over-fist. Maybe someone in Hollywood will realize that originality is a good thing?
June 7, 2009
May 27, 2009
New Direction
My new RA doctor heeded my request and has switched my medications around so that I am taking far less prednisone and much more Imuran. We will see how the liver likes that and how the RA stands it over the next three months and adjust again, as needed.
This pleases me as I am the heaviest I've ever been after a year of predominantly using prednisone to help with the RA flares I was having almost constantly. Unfortunately, one of prednisone's biggest negatives is that it stimulates appetite. I was finding myself eating way more than I wanted or needed and would litterally catch myself at the refridgerator with the door open and not remember how I got there-- my hunger cravings having caused me to ease there and start looking for something to munch.
Each time I've been on prednisone for an extended time I have gained around 15-25 lbs. Back when I was grossly underweight at 115-120 lbs, this was a good thing. Getting me to the 155-165 lbs my doctors wanted me at made sense too. However, I was averaging 166-168 a year ago before I moved to SJ and my RA doctor and I decided to go with prednisone while I moved, found a new RA doctor, and got up to speed with the medical services/system here. A year of prednisone later and I'm happy when the scale reads less than 190. Ecstatic when it reaches as low as 185, which it has twice since moving here-- both times after being violent ill, but still. My face has gotten very heavy and round-looking, to the point of what both M and her mom refer to as "prednisone face" (having seen it in M's brother when he was on prednisone).
Over the course of the year, I have averaged about 20 mg a day, with bad flares causing me to go up as high as 50 mg before tapering back down. During that same time, I was taking 50 mg of Imuran. My new doctor has me up to 100 mg of Imuran and I have been able to lower my prednisone intake to 5-10 mg a day, usually closer to 5. Already I am seeing a decrease in my appetite after only a couple of weeks.
A month ago I was eating a 12" sandwich, a bowl of soup, a cookie and/or chips, and drinking a 24-32 oz soda for lunch. Today I had an 8" sandwich and a 12 oz soda and felt pleasantly full. I was not even tempted by the last bit of pound cake on the counter, and I love pound cake.
Hopefully, this trend will continue and I'll go back to eating sensible amounts and not feeling like grazing or binging between meals. If it does, some weight will come off as my caloric intake decreases. If I can up the activity level, even a small amount, at the same time, I feel like going back to 175 or less is achievable.
Here's hoping!
This pleases me as I am the heaviest I've ever been after a year of predominantly using prednisone to help with the RA flares I was having almost constantly. Unfortunately, one of prednisone's biggest negatives is that it stimulates appetite. I was finding myself eating way more than I wanted or needed and would litterally catch myself at the refridgerator with the door open and not remember how I got there-- my hunger cravings having caused me to ease there and start looking for something to munch.
Each time I've been on prednisone for an extended time I have gained around 15-25 lbs. Back when I was grossly underweight at 115-120 lbs, this was a good thing. Getting me to the 155-165 lbs my doctors wanted me at made sense too. However, I was averaging 166-168 a year ago before I moved to SJ and my RA doctor and I decided to go with prednisone while I moved, found a new RA doctor, and got up to speed with the medical services/system here. A year of prednisone later and I'm happy when the scale reads less than 190. Ecstatic when it reaches as low as 185, which it has twice since moving here-- both times after being violent ill, but still. My face has gotten very heavy and round-looking, to the point of what both M and her mom refer to as "prednisone face" (having seen it in M's brother when he was on prednisone).
Over the course of the year, I have averaged about 20 mg a day, with bad flares causing me to go up as high as 50 mg before tapering back down. During that same time, I was taking 50 mg of Imuran. My new doctor has me up to 100 mg of Imuran and I have been able to lower my prednisone intake to 5-10 mg a day, usually closer to 5. Already I am seeing a decrease in my appetite after only a couple of weeks.
A month ago I was eating a 12" sandwich, a bowl of soup, a cookie and/or chips, and drinking a 24-32 oz soda for lunch. Today I had an 8" sandwich and a 12 oz soda and felt pleasantly full. I was not even tempted by the last bit of pound cake on the counter, and I love pound cake.
Hopefully, this trend will continue and I'll go back to eating sensible amounts and not feeling like grazing or binging between meals. If it does, some weight will come off as my caloric intake decreases. If I can up the activity level, even a small amount, at the same time, I feel like going back to 175 or less is achievable.
Here's hoping!
May 21, 2009
Bundle of Joy
We have ourselves a new companion! We pulled the trigger on an adoption from the Animal Rescue League via the Pet Corral on the west side. We turned in the paperwork on Sunday midday, were called with the approval that evening, and then was called by the owner of the Pet Corral that we could pick him up on Monday (even though it was a national holiday). We got him Monday, and bought a ton of cat-related products to go with him (at 20% discount).
This male, neutered tabby is about 10 lbs. He is around 2 years old, seems mostly well-behaved so far, and is an absolute attention whore. He loves sitting on a lap or sitting near to a person so he can be scratched and petted. He loves having his belly rubbed.
He seems so petite and delicate after my 22 lbs cat, Calypso. He has a remarkably similar face, though, which M even commented on. Her words were, “He’s like a gray Caly.”
We’re calling him “Romy” (roam-ee) for now. It is the name he seems to respond to the most of all our choices. However, he had a previous name (the surprising “QQ”) which he also does not respond to at all, so no big deal. We’ll get him to figure it out.
We initially put him only in the basement, to let him get accustomed to us and the new environment. I figured that might last for a few days, but he took to the new place quickly and well. He proved to be litter box trained by consistently using the box and litter we provided, so we let him up into the main house the next day. He continues to use the litter box even though it is downstairs, so that is good. I am still diligently looking in all corners upstairs and around, just in case, though!
He likes his dark purple collar and has no issues wearing it—he obviously has had one before with his previous owners. He doesn’t seem to like the toys we bought, but we’ll keep trying until we find something he likes to play with. Purple, M has decided, is his favorite color; toys, blankets, and such will be in masculine shades of purple. I’m fine with this, it allows her to bond with the pet, and the purple looks good with his gray and white coat.
While the pictures don’t show it, he does do a lot of exploring. He seems fairly active and does like both of us (which was important—we needed a cat that would like M straight away, because she is out of the house more than I am. Plus, who are we kidding, cats just like me!). He is mostly a quiet cat; he meows sometimes, especially at the top of the stairs, and he definitely seems to want to tell us something every now and then, but otherwise he just stays quiet and purrs loudly instead. Since I’m not overly fond of loud or talkative cats, this suits me just fine.
He came home with a bit of an infection in the left eye, which we are treating with some cream and is already clearing up nicely. Boy, does he hate the medication time! He is otherwise, according to the vet, in great shape and she was impressed with how well-behaved he was during his visit. We take him back for a follow up and some booster shots on Tuesday.
M is adjusting. She is fearful of having this living thing with us and reliant on us. However, she does like him curling up next to her and purring and keeping her warm. This morning I woke up and Romy was curled up right next to her and she was petting under his chin with a really sweet smile. I think the cat is winning her over.
Her main concern right now is the cat hair. While the cat doesn’t shed too badly, all hairy animals shed some amount. She is trying to come up with a plan to minimize the hair infusion. I’ve told her all we really can do is be more diligent about vacuuming and dusting plus using lint brushes as needed.
He does have a couple of bad habits; he appears to like being on tables and counters and he begs a bit at the table. We don’t mind him on the bed or the chairs, but we do not want him on the kitchen table or counter tops nor on the PC desks. He seems to be okay with this, but I think he’s getting up there at night. We’ll see if we can’t break that. As to the begging, I will not feed any pet anything from the table, as it only creates issues no matter how “cute” it might be, so we will need to break him of this habit as well. As it is not bad, it shouldn’t be too hard to break him of it.
I’m very excited about this change for a couple of reasons: we picked a very loving cat, I love having a pet around, and M is responding very favorably. I think it is a good growth and bonding experience for us as a couple and I hope it continues to go smoothly over the next few months while M gets used to the idea of being a “parent.”
Going to Get a Rep
I had an appointment today with a dermatologist to see about some skin issues I’ve been experiencing. Nothing too big or bad, just want each checked to make sure it is, as I suspect, nothing and maybe have a few troublesome moles removed from places that get irritated easily (like my neck).
My appointment was at 2:30 pm, so I got there about 2:20 pm. Good thing, too, because the location was inside a store, which was not readily apparent. I walked the entire length of the little outdoor mall twice before realizing where it was. They need much better external signage.
I filled out the paperwork, which took about 3 minutes, and then waited about 15 before being called back. So, let’s call it 2:50 pm before I am called into the back room. I am told to strip to my underwear and “the doctor will be with you shortly.”
At 3:30 pm, cold and irritated, I put my clothes back on and left. I stopped at the receptionist and in a not-impolite voice said, “Please tell the doctor I’ve left.”
She said, “Has the doctor seen you?”
To which I replied, “No. I gave him an hour and ….” I shrugged my shoulders.
I turned to leave and she said she would forward my referral back to my primary care physician. After she said that, the second receptionist added insult to injury by sarcastically saying, “Have a nice day!”
I have always found that if you accept unprofessional behavior, you get unprofessional behavior. We had an agreement that I would be seen at or around 2:30 pm today. Now, I grant that doctors get busy, emergencies occur, and time gets away from them. However, to keep a person waiting in a cold room in their underwear for approximately 40 minutes is uncalled for. Then, to add to the wonderful first impression the doctor provided with being so late, the second receptionist acts in an equally unprofessional behavior.
I’ve gotten used to the rampant Canadian behavior of apologizing for a bad job or poor service rather than just providing adequate (or better) performance. Luckily, I don’t feel any of my new friends or family here fall into that category (they complain about it as much as I do) – but it is a shame that so many get away with doing the least possible without reprimands or termination.
However, this doctor and his office staff were, to me and how I was raised, something worse. To me, this was the height of arrogance, disrespect, and rudeness.
I was raised that if you make an agreement, you honor it (or have a really good reason – note, not an excuse, a reason, why you couldn’t). A “date” (professional or personal) is one such agreement. We contracted to each set aside this time to meet professionally. He didn’t live up to that agreement, actually missing it by a long shot. His staff then followed that up by being unconscionably rude.
First impressions are important. This doctor and his staff have, in my mind and to my upbringing, proven themselves unprofessional in the extreme. I will tell anybody I know not to go to him.
May 14, 2009
Cameron's Wedding
M and I watched the House episode from this week last night. During the wedding shots of Cameron and Chase, I whispered in M's ear, "You looked better than her" about our wedding. I was NOT trying to score bonus Husband points-- it was an honest statement.
I am frequently surprised at how actresses look in the wedding dresses picked for them for TV and movies. While Cameron looked nice, I didn't think the particular ensemble was right for her body or coloring. Whereas my wife picked a dress that was right for her and looked beautiful in it with her tiara and flowers.
Just goes to show that you can have millions of dollars and personal shoppers, but still get the wrong dress. Or you can be a frugal woman on a budget and get the right dress.
I am frequently surprised at how actresses look in the wedding dresses picked for them for TV and movies. While Cameron looked nice, I didn't think the particular ensemble was right for her body or coloring. Whereas my wife picked a dress that was right for her and looked beautiful in it with her tiara and flowers.
Just goes to show that you can have millions of dollars and personal shoppers, but still get the wrong dress. Or you can be a frugal woman on a budget and get the right dress.
Baby Steps, Cat's Paws
M and I went down to the Pet Corral last evening and looked at the 7 cats they had. One was in an open cage at the front of the store, was cute, but not overly responsive to either of us. In the back of the store there were three in the upper windowed viewing room and three in the lower.
In the upper area was a black with some white highlights (reminded me a lot of my buddy Chris' cat Sam) short-hair, another was a sleek grey with black stripes short-hair with an evil look (no, seriously-- looked like it just wanted to rip our throats out), and the third was a large grey and white short-hair cat.
In the lower area was another grey and black striped short-hair, a white and gray/black short-hair, and a medium-hair black/orange mixed cat.
As we cooed and watched them, the black/orange was definitely interested in me. It came whenever I put my hand by the glass, rolled over on its back, and was generally very interested. The black cat had some interest in M, but not enough to really get up and say hello. After it finally woke up and decided to stretch, however, the large gray/white definitely became interested in M and definitely liked me. It walked by us and rubbed against the glass whenever either of us put our hand up.
My guess is the gray/white was about 2-3 years old and the rest were around 1-ish, from their size (all looked fully grown) and the level of activity of each.
As they were in the process of cleaning up the shop and seemed fairly busy for that time, we didn't ask to interact with any of them, although I admit I would have liked to.
Two positives: M wanted to go looking (but not purchasing or taking home-- baby steps) at the cats with me and she commented that the one that liked us both was "like a gray Caly."
She also got to see a little of what our friends and I have been saying about getting two cats-- the gray striped and black/orange cats got to playing and entertaining each other, and also spent some time grooming each other. While I doubt we will be a two-cat household, she did get to see it in action a bit and it helps her understanding of why we say these things.
We have some plans to go to another location and view some more cats in the near-ish future. Again, without any immediate pressure to get a cat, but just to look and see if any like M and if she likes any of them. I think she could be convinced on the gray/white we saw yesterday, but I'm trying my best not to put undue pressure on her -- if I do and she winds up hating the animal, that would be a strain that we do not need.
It was a cutey, though. ;-)
In the upper area was a black with some white highlights (reminded me a lot of my buddy Chris' cat Sam) short-hair, another was a sleek grey with black stripes short-hair with an evil look (no, seriously-- looked like it just wanted to rip our throats out), and the third was a large grey and white short-hair cat.
In the lower area was another grey and black striped short-hair, a white and gray/black short-hair, and a medium-hair black/orange mixed cat.
As we cooed and watched them, the black/orange was definitely interested in me. It came whenever I put my hand by the glass, rolled over on its back, and was generally very interested. The black cat had some interest in M, but not enough to really get up and say hello. After it finally woke up and decided to stretch, however, the large gray/white definitely became interested in M and definitely liked me. It walked by us and rubbed against the glass whenever either of us put our hand up.
My guess is the gray/white was about 2-3 years old and the rest were around 1-ish, from their size (all looked fully grown) and the level of activity of each.
As they were in the process of cleaning up the shop and seemed fairly busy for that time, we didn't ask to interact with any of them, although I admit I would have liked to.
Two positives: M wanted to go looking (but not purchasing or taking home-- baby steps) at the cats with me and she commented that the one that liked us both was "like a gray Caly."
She also got to see a little of what our friends and I have been saying about getting two cats-- the gray striped and black/orange cats got to playing and entertaining each other, and also spent some time grooming each other. While I doubt we will be a two-cat household, she did get to see it in action a bit and it helps her understanding of why we say these things.
We have some plans to go to another location and view some more cats in the near-ish future. Again, without any immediate pressure to get a cat, but just to look and see if any like M and if she likes any of them. I think she could be convinced on the gray/white we saw yesterday, but I'm trying my best not to put undue pressure on her -- if I do and she winds up hating the animal, that would be a strain that we do not need.
It was a cutey, though. ;-)
May 13, 2009
Miss California
Any beauty queen's job is to be a public figure, a leader, and a representative of whatever or whomever elected her. In the case of a state, the woman is supposed to represent the many varied people and lifestyles and to encourage people to go to that state. As many in other types of public positions of leadership and celebrity can attest, these positions require tact and the ability to comport oneself with decorum and sensitivity at all times, even when the cameras are "off." In this, Miss California Carrie Prejean failed miserably, both in the Miss America pageant and since. If she doesn't have the forethought and comportment to answer questions during the pageant in a politically appropriate and sensitive way, what must she say when she thinks no one is listening?
California has enough gay people and those believing in gay marriage to pass a bill in the state to approve homosexual marriages. Many have argued that the only way the opponents of gay marriage could get that bill rescinded was by introducing a new proposition that was so confusing that many may not have known which way they were voting (and was barely a majority, with 52% voting to overturn gay marriage).
Miss California has stated categorically and unequivocally that she does not represent the gay people or culture in California, both during the Miss America contest and afterward in interviews. She now is getting paid to represent groups who agree with her stance; this is also in direct contradiction to the agreement when she became Miss California. She is no longer representing California as a whole and is, in fact, actively disavowing a group of people.
Another blow to her credibility in this very public position of leadership is that she lied to the Miss America governing body about semi-nude photos. So, not only is she unwilling to live up to her obligation as Miss California, she is perfectly willing to lie to try and win an even more prestigious public position. She's starting to seem like she should be in an office, all right-- normally I would say Congress, but the previous administrations (Clinton's and Bush's) indicate maybe the President is the best office -- a disregard for those whom you represent and a flaunting of the rules seems to fit!
I won't even go into the Miss California Organization potentially paying for Carrie Prejean to have a boob-job. If true, however, it is another interesting twist in this woman's 15-minutes of fame.
Lastly, of course, is her stating that she is staunchly Christian and follows the Bible. I guess she forgot or missed all those passages where Jesus preaches love and acceptance? Didn't think Jesus meant it when he was inclusive of all of the "worst" of society (for that time period). Missed all of his speeches on tolerance, turning the other cheek, etc.? She certainly is not the careful, polite, and considerate public speaker that Jesus is in the Bible.
Makes me wonder how her position on these issues reflects on her church and its leadership and members? I wonder if the membership went up or down there after all this came out? I wonder if her priest teaches this particular intolerance to his parishioners?
Of course, this debate says as much about those who agree with Carrie Prejean as it does about Miss California; if the question had been "What are your feelings on the rights of Mexicans (or any other minority) to marry?", or "What are your feelings on giving women the right to vote?" we would all be appalled that she said she is not in favor of it. We would think she was racist, sexist, and bigoted and would have stripped her of the California crown immediately, and no groups would want to pay her to be in ads extolling her opinions. But because this is against gay men and women it is okay for her to keep her crown and keep "representing" the few in California that she doesn't have a problem with.
Prejudice and bigotry are wrong, people. Even against gays.
Regardless of my position on any of the issues mentioned above, I can tell you this much: Carrie Prejean does not represent me in any way. And that, at the end of the day, is supposed to be her primary job until next year's Miss California pageant. And that is the reason why her crown should be revoked.
California has enough gay people and those believing in gay marriage to pass a bill in the state to approve homosexual marriages. Many have argued that the only way the opponents of gay marriage could get that bill rescinded was by introducing a new proposition that was so confusing that many may not have known which way they were voting (and was barely a majority, with 52% voting to overturn gay marriage).
Miss California has stated categorically and unequivocally that she does not represent the gay people or culture in California, both during the Miss America contest and afterward in interviews. She now is getting paid to represent groups who agree with her stance; this is also in direct contradiction to the agreement when she became Miss California. She is no longer representing California as a whole and is, in fact, actively disavowing a group of people.
Another blow to her credibility in this very public position of leadership is that she lied to the Miss America governing body about semi-nude photos. So, not only is she unwilling to live up to her obligation as Miss California, she is perfectly willing to lie to try and win an even more prestigious public position. She's starting to seem like she should be in an office, all right-- normally I would say Congress, but the previous administrations (Clinton's and Bush's) indicate maybe the President is the best office -- a disregard for those whom you represent and a flaunting of the rules seems to fit!
I won't even go into the Miss California Organization potentially paying for Carrie Prejean to have a boob-job. If true, however, it is another interesting twist in this woman's 15-minutes of fame.
Lastly, of course, is her stating that she is staunchly Christian and follows the Bible. I guess she forgot or missed all those passages where Jesus preaches love and acceptance? Didn't think Jesus meant it when he was inclusive of all of the "worst" of society (for that time period). Missed all of his speeches on tolerance, turning the other cheek, etc.? She certainly is not the careful, polite, and considerate public speaker that Jesus is in the Bible.
Makes me wonder how her position on these issues reflects on her church and its leadership and members? I wonder if the membership went up or down there after all this came out? I wonder if her priest teaches this particular intolerance to his parishioners?
Of course, this debate says as much about those who agree with Carrie Prejean as it does about Miss California; if the question had been "What are your feelings on the rights of Mexicans (or any other minority) to marry?", or "What are your feelings on giving women the right to vote?" we would all be appalled that she said she is not in favor of it. We would think she was racist, sexist, and bigoted and would have stripped her of the California crown immediately, and no groups would want to pay her to be in ads extolling her opinions. But because this is against gay men and women it is okay for her to keep her crown and keep "representing" the few in California that she doesn't have a problem with.
Prejudice and bigotry are wrong, people. Even against gays.
Regardless of my position on any of the issues mentioned above, I can tell you this much: Carrie Prejean does not represent me in any way. And that, at the end of the day, is supposed to be her primary job until next year's Miss California pageant. And that is the reason why her crown should be revoked.
Star Trek
I managed to convince M to leave work and go see the new Star Trek movie last night.
Once there, we asked for Julie, the manager I spoke with about the poor quality of our last few experiences at this theatre. She was willing to give us the free tickets to get in, so we have resolved that issue. We also noted that the food lines were running more smoothly. Ironically, they had some projection issues to start with, but had them resolved before the previews.
Star Trek is a great science fiction action adventure movie. It has a solid story, good acting, very good effects, and dependable direction. I think that most fans of any of the before-mentioned genre subtopics would enjoy the movie, would be strongly entertained, and would leave the theater happy/satisfied.
Trekkers (aka Trekkies) may see it otherwise, however.
Time travel is one of my least liked plot devices because it is rarely done well and rarely answers the questions it raises. It fills the screen with plot holes the size of semi-trucks and expects you either to ignore them or tries to explain them away, usually to little effect.
In this case, the main villain comes from a future where his planet has been destroyed. He is transported somewhat by accident back to a past where the actions he takes changes things. And herein lies the problem for Trekkers: Nero's actions affect the future of the entire Star Trek universe such that all of TOS, Next Gen, et al cannot happen in the same way as they "know" from the canon presented in the existing shows and movies.
One of the strongest aspects of the Star Trek universe for both Trekkers and non-Trekkers is the coherent continuity it has always maintained. Roddenbery and Berman, among others, always tried to fit everything into a coherent whole. Even other time travel stories, like First Contact, showed that "history" as we know it still happened, there was just another side to it that we didn't know until now. This Star Trek story, however, actually erases and changes all of those known stories and the much-loved continuity.
For example, because of Nero's incursion into the earlier timeline, Kirk's is not born in Iowa, as has always been established. Instead, Kirk's parents are separated in space by a battle and Kirk is born on a shuttle craft. These ripples keep spreading throughout the universe, causing people to be a bit different, to have different histories than fans are used to, and to meet under very different circumstances than canon states.
According to the writers and producers of the new movie, the fact that certain coincidences happen to bring the crew of the Enterprise together (for example, Scotty just happens to be on the ice planet that Kirk just happens to get stranded on) is the universe's way of trying to correct itself. However, this is not explicitly stated in the movie; I know that from a recent interview with them (see here). If this had been a line somewhere in the movie, I think Trekkers would have an easier time with the changes.
Never brought up is the fact that Nero is transported back to a time well before the precipitating event occurs; it seems strange that he would go on a rampage against the Federation instead of doing things that could prevent that event from happening in the first place.
The other thing that disappoints me about using time travel as the main plot device is that this is a reboot movie. I could rewrite the exact story without the time travel aspect and it would be a better film because you would not be invalidating everything that comes before. You would instead just be telling everyone that this is new and, because you're at the beginning, different things are going to occur than you're used to. It would make it stronger overall and wouldn't irritate the Trekkers nearly as much as a time-wipe would. If forced to keep with the time travel story, I would have put a lot more explanation in to suggest how this was going to affect the universe and the people in it.
I was disappointed by the fact time travel was used but was otherwise completely and thoroughly entertained by the movie. I was willing to set aside most all of my knowledge and understanding of the Trek universe as things started to change. If my wife is any indication, true Trekkers and die-hard fans will likely have a greater issues with doing this.
Especially strong in the movie are Chris Pine (who does not do a Shatner impression, but does hit the right spirit often enough that it feels like he is paying homage to the Shat without trying to mimic or impersonate him), Karl Urban (his Bones is very well done throughout, and he gets some of the best humor lines throughout), Simon Pegg (he was a bit broad, but in a good way), and John Cho (his Sulu was strong but definitely a secondary character). Zachary Quinto did a very good job with Spock, but didn't make it his own-- a second movie would likely let him grow into it more.
This could be a break out hit, along the lines of an Iron Man. It is strong in all facets of production and acting. All it needs is some time to find its audience. Hopefully Trekkers will give it a shot and will set aside their preconceptions and Trek universe knowledge and embrace it.
I look forward to a second movie from the same team.
Once there, we asked for Julie, the manager I spoke with about the poor quality of our last few experiences at this theatre. She was willing to give us the free tickets to get in, so we have resolved that issue. We also noted that the food lines were running more smoothly. Ironically, they had some projection issues to start with, but had them resolved before the previews.
Star Trek is a great science fiction action adventure movie. It has a solid story, good acting, very good effects, and dependable direction. I think that most fans of any of the before-mentioned genre subtopics would enjoy the movie, would be strongly entertained, and would leave the theater happy/satisfied.
Trekkers (aka Trekkies) may see it otherwise, however.
Time travel is one of my least liked plot devices because it is rarely done well and rarely answers the questions it raises. It fills the screen with plot holes the size of semi-trucks and expects you either to ignore them or tries to explain them away, usually to little effect.
In this case, the main villain comes from a future where his planet has been destroyed. He is transported somewhat by accident back to a past where the actions he takes changes things. And herein lies the problem for Trekkers: Nero's actions affect the future of the entire Star Trek universe such that all of TOS, Next Gen, et al cannot happen in the same way as they "know" from the canon presented in the existing shows and movies.
One of the strongest aspects of the Star Trek universe for both Trekkers and non-Trekkers is the coherent continuity it has always maintained. Roddenbery and Berman, among others, always tried to fit everything into a coherent whole. Even other time travel stories, like First Contact, showed that "history" as we know it still happened, there was just another side to it that we didn't know until now. This Star Trek story, however, actually erases and changes all of those known stories and the much-loved continuity.
For example, because of Nero's incursion into the earlier timeline, Kirk's is not born in Iowa, as has always been established. Instead, Kirk's parents are separated in space by a battle and Kirk is born on a shuttle craft. These ripples keep spreading throughout the universe, causing people to be a bit different, to have different histories than fans are used to, and to meet under very different circumstances than canon states.
According to the writers and producers of the new movie, the fact that certain coincidences happen to bring the crew of the Enterprise together (for example, Scotty just happens to be on the ice planet that Kirk just happens to get stranded on) is the universe's way of trying to correct itself. However, this is not explicitly stated in the movie; I know that from a recent interview with them (see here). If this had been a line somewhere in the movie, I think Trekkers would have an easier time with the changes.
Never brought up is the fact that Nero is transported back to a time well before the precipitating event occurs; it seems strange that he would go on a rampage against the Federation instead of doing things that could prevent that event from happening in the first place.
The other thing that disappoints me about using time travel as the main plot device is that this is a reboot movie. I could rewrite the exact story without the time travel aspect and it would be a better film because you would not be invalidating everything that comes before. You would instead just be telling everyone that this is new and, because you're at the beginning, different things are going to occur than you're used to. It would make it stronger overall and wouldn't irritate the Trekkers nearly as much as a time-wipe would. If forced to keep with the time travel story, I would have put a lot more explanation in to suggest how this was going to affect the universe and the people in it.
I was disappointed by the fact time travel was used but was otherwise completely and thoroughly entertained by the movie. I was willing to set aside most all of my knowledge and understanding of the Trek universe as things started to change. If my wife is any indication, true Trekkers and die-hard fans will likely have a greater issues with doing this.
Especially strong in the movie are Chris Pine (who does not do a Shatner impression, but does hit the right spirit often enough that it feels like he is paying homage to the Shat without trying to mimic or impersonate him), Karl Urban (his Bones is very well done throughout, and he gets some of the best humor lines throughout), Simon Pegg (he was a bit broad, but in a good way), and John Cho (his Sulu was strong but definitely a secondary character). Zachary Quinto did a very good job with Spock, but didn't make it his own-- a second movie would likely let him grow into it more.
This could be a break out hit, along the lines of an Iron Man. It is strong in all facets of production and acting. All it needs is some time to find its audience. Hopefully Trekkers will give it a shot and will set aside their preconceptions and Trek universe knowledge and embrace it.
I look forward to a second movie from the same team.
May 8, 2009
Fire, Fire Burning Bright
It is not looking good for my Uncle's house (formerly my grandmother's house) in Santa Barbara. Got word from my mother that the fire was burning on the two streets on which the house was built.
This is sad for a number of reasons:
The one good thing that may come from it is that, upon rebuilding, my Uncle and his family may choose to paint the house something other than the garish, bright pink it always was before!
---
Update: Just got word from mom that my Uncle's house is okay, as of right now. He's trying to drive his work-truck and some stuff out of the area, as the fire could come back at any time. Law enforcement was pissed at him for showing up, and may not allow him to do so, but if I know my Uncle, he'll do it anyway.
This is sad for a number of reasons:
- It is the only home my Uncle has known, and he has a large family and it will take time to rebuild.
- That house was one of the original built on that hill over 60 years ago, before it became a posh place to live. It had a view of pretty much all of Santa Barbara, the main city beach, the channel, and on a clear day, the channel islands. We actually once saw a pod of whales swimming down the channel from the deck of the house (they were tiny from that distance, but we still could make them out).
- I have many fond memories of summer and Christmas visits to that house.
- I've always like Santa Barbara.
- The Mission and Botanical Gardens are both just down the hill from that house; they may be threatened or destroyed.
The one good thing that may come from it is that, upon rebuilding, my Uncle and his family may choose to paint the house something other than the garish, bright pink it always was before!
---
Update: Just got word from mom that my Uncle's house is okay, as of right now. He's trying to drive his work-truck and some stuff out of the area, as the fire could come back at any time. Law enforcement was pissed at him for showing up, and may not allow him to do so, but if I know my Uncle, he'll do it anyway.
May 7, 2009
Oh, Canada!
I'm feeling a little like I'm being punished for moving to Canada. There are a few things that make little sense that are affecting my ability to get things done here. One of which involves financial situations.
M doesn't like dealing with the financial side of things. She wants me to take that over because she knows I care about it and will watch it. However, because I haven't been in Canada for very long, I'm a bit stymied in certain things.
For example, in order to earn more interest in a savings account, and because I have been a long-time member of ING Direct, we decided to open an ING Direct Canada account. Although it is the same company, the American and Canadian side do not have ANYTHING to do with each other in the slightest-- to the point of not even checking my credit history and account status on one side to prove I'm an okay risk on the other side. Our joint account is now on hold because I have no credit history at all (which, frankly should be a good thing, shouldn't it? I mean, I have no negatives to work against me! But, having worked for a company that knows all about credit histories, I know that's not how it works). This includes disallowing my wife from doing anything on the account, even though she has a very good credit history, because I am the other person on the account.
It took almost a half hour on the phone to get this reason discovered and explained to me. Now I have to wait 5-7 business days for the official forms to arrive, fill them out and get them notarized, and then 5-7 business days to send them back before either of us can transfer money into the account.
Ironically, anyone, ourselves included, can write a check and put our account number on it and ING Direct will happily deposit the funds into the account even without my credit history. The only REAL reason they want that signed form is so that I (or my wife) can take the money OUT of the account.
Why can't any financial institution simply ask for my SIN -OR- SSN and check both? When they see I have a great credit rating in America, they can use that information as part of their decision making process. Also, the man admitted they use Transunion and Equifax -- both of which work equally well in America and Canada (but, probably, like ING, are completely separate units that cannot talk to each other). Or do they think I've come to Canada with the sole purpose of trashing my credit rating here, being a never-do-well, and then leaving to my pristine credit across the border?
So, now I await the forms. Luckily, we have a friend who is a notary public, so we should be able to get that part done fairly quickly/easily. But having to do it at all is aggravating.
M doesn't like dealing with the financial side of things. She wants me to take that over because she knows I care about it and will watch it. However, because I haven't been in Canada for very long, I'm a bit stymied in certain things.
For example, in order to earn more interest in a savings account, and because I have been a long-time member of ING Direct, we decided to open an ING Direct Canada account. Although it is the same company, the American and Canadian side do not have ANYTHING to do with each other in the slightest-- to the point of not even checking my credit history and account status on one side to prove I'm an okay risk on the other side. Our joint account is now on hold because I have no credit history at all (which, frankly should be a good thing, shouldn't it? I mean, I have no negatives to work against me! But, having worked for a company that knows all about credit histories, I know that's not how it works). This includes disallowing my wife from doing anything on the account, even though she has a very good credit history, because I am the other person on the account.
It took almost a half hour on the phone to get this reason discovered and explained to me. Now I have to wait 5-7 business days for the official forms to arrive, fill them out and get them notarized, and then 5-7 business days to send them back before either of us can transfer money into the account.
Ironically, anyone, ourselves included, can write a check and put our account number on it and ING Direct will happily deposit the funds into the account even without my credit history. The only REAL reason they want that signed form is so that I (or my wife) can take the money OUT of the account.
Why can't any financial institution simply ask for my SIN -OR- SSN and check both? When they see I have a great credit rating in America, they can use that information as part of their decision making process. Also, the man admitted they use Transunion and Equifax -- both of which work equally well in America and Canada (but, probably, like ING, are completely separate units that cannot talk to each other). Or do they think I've come to Canada with the sole purpose of trashing my credit rating here, being a never-do-well, and then leaving to my pristine credit across the border?
So, now I await the forms. Luckily, we have a friend who is a notary public, so we should be able to get that part done fairly quickly/easily. But having to do it at all is aggravating.
May 5, 2009
Life Ends
Life, one of the best shows on TV you weren't watching, was canceled yesterday by NBC. Yet another of that network's best, most inventive shows is axed so they can put another hour of mediocre "reality" type programming on.
I've checked a few entertainment sites that have commented on the loss of Life. On each, there are dozens to hundreds of positive comments about that show. What should worry NBC is the fact that the vast majority of people say that Life was the last show on that network they watched; by canceling it, NBC has done the opposite of what they wanted to do -- they have lost viewers.
The other thing I note, and have been noting on a lot of entertainment sites, is the fact that there is a very strong anti-reality programming backlash brewing. People are getting fed up with the Survivors, Dancers, Idols, and the rest and are seeking good, quality dramas wherever they can find them. Yet another reason why the off-networks like TNT, Spike, and FX are gaining viewers as fast as the main networks lose them-- they are producing those quality hours that the networks don't feel the public wants anymore.
Life was one of my top three shows. It consistently got between a 5 and a 6.5 rating in season 2. It will be interesting to see if the replacement show(s) can top those numbers. Since, so far, every show that has dipped to or below 6 has been axed by NBC and replaced by something that has done the same or worse, I seriously doubt it. Also, an interesting thing to note is that when it was on at its original time slot (10pm) it averaged an 8 rating and when it moved to 9pm (against some heavy-hitters) it dropped to just below a 6 average rating. How many blogs, emails, and phone calls do I have to do before the networks understand that changing the time and/or day of a show is an effective way to kill it? You rarely pick up viewers doing so; most shows lose about 20 to 35 percent per switch, no matter how highly rated the show was at its original time slot.
Oh well... Burn Notice and Leverage are only about a month or so away from restarting for the summer. If NBC doesn't want me, another network will!
I've checked a few entertainment sites that have commented on the loss of Life. On each, there are dozens to hundreds of positive comments about that show. What should worry NBC is the fact that the vast majority of people say that Life was the last show on that network they watched; by canceling it, NBC has done the opposite of what they wanted to do -- they have lost viewers.
The other thing I note, and have been noting on a lot of entertainment sites, is the fact that there is a very strong anti-reality programming backlash brewing. People are getting fed up with the Survivors, Dancers, Idols, and the rest and are seeking good, quality dramas wherever they can find them. Yet another reason why the off-networks like TNT, Spike, and FX are gaining viewers as fast as the main networks lose them-- they are producing those quality hours that the networks don't feel the public wants anymore.
Life was one of my top three shows. It consistently got between a 5 and a 6.5 rating in season 2. It will be interesting to see if the replacement show(s) can top those numbers. Since, so far, every show that has dipped to or below 6 has been axed by NBC and replaced by something that has done the same or worse, I seriously doubt it. Also, an interesting thing to note is that when it was on at its original time slot (10pm) it averaged an 8 rating and when it moved to 9pm (against some heavy-hitters) it dropped to just below a 6 average rating. How many blogs, emails, and phone calls do I have to do before the networks understand that changing the time and/or day of a show is an effective way to kill it? You rarely pick up viewers doing so; most shows lose about 20 to 35 percent per switch, no matter how highly rated the show was at its original time slot.
Oh well... Burn Notice and Leverage are only about a month or so away from restarting for the summer. If NBC doesn't want me, another network will!
May 2, 2009
Flagrant Fouls
Moreso than usual, this year's NBA playoffs has shown some woefully inept refereeing. While the NBA is somewhat known for bad officiating, these playoffs have really sunk to new depths.
The most egregious of which is the handling of Rajon Rondo's foul against Brad Miller in game 5 with 2 seconds left in the game. Here is a copy of the rules concerning a Flagrant Foul in the NBA:
The blow itself, while performed by a smaller man on a much larger man, still managed to result in a bloody mouth for Miller. Was this unnecessary? Definitely-- it appeared to be done with the sole intent of knocking Miller down so he could not make the game tying dunk he was about to achieve. Was it excessive? Rondo (6'1"/170 lbs) hit Miller (7'/270 lbs) hard enough in the head to knock a much bigger man down and bloody his mouth.
For this hard hit, Rondo was simply given a standard (not flagrant) foul. Miller missed the two free throws (some would argue due to the intense pain in his mouth and head after being knocked to the floor), and Chicago lost the game by 2 points. In reviewing the play the next day, the NBA decided Rondo would not receive any further sanctions and his foul would not be upgraded to a flagrant 1 or 2.
Now, obviously, this would have been mitigated had Miller made his foul shots and potentially forced overtime (or made the dunk and the subsequent free throw for the victory). However, the fact that he was hit hard enough not to make either the shot or the free throws says something about how hard this hit was. Had this foul been charged a flagrant, though, the Bulls would have had the free throws PLUS the ball -- and could have tried again to tie or win the game. This (non)call changed the outcome of the game.
The very next game, in the first quarter, Rondo threw an elbow at Kirk Hinrich's head area. The video shows Rondo purposefully throwing that elbow. He was assessed a flagrant foul (1) but stayed in the game. The Bulls went on to scrape a triple overtime victory in the game. I mention this foul as Dwight Howard of the Orlando Magic threw a similar elbow at the head area of an opposing player, similarly missed, and was given a flagrant foul (2) and was suspended from playing in the next Magic game -- which the Magic lost. Would the Bulls have needed triple-OT to win that game had Rondo been properly assessed a flagrant 2 and ejected from the game?
The NBA has for years been trying to lessen or eliminate the appearance of bias by the referees. They added the third referee to cut down on "phantom" fouls but, instead, fouls increased. They recently released, fined, and suspended a referee accused of betting on basketball games and did a "thorough" review of all other refs to make sure sports betting wasn't happening. Although some small improprieties were found, no one else was suspended, fined, or held accountable.
Most of my friends and I agree that the following are the main problems:
The most egregious of which is the handling of Rajon Rondo's foul against Brad Miller in game 5 with 2 seconds left in the game. Here is a copy of the rules concerning a Flagrant Foul in the NBA:
Section IV--Flagrant FoulI've watched the video for it from a variety of angles and at no time does Rondo go for the ball, which is about 2-3 feet from where Miller's head is located. It has been widely interpreted, and called by refs for the last few years, that any blow to the head of any sort when not going for the ball (and sometimes even when going for the ball) is deemed "unnecessary" (flagrant 1) and oftentimes automatically called as "unnecessary and excessive" (flagrant 2). Rondo made no attempt for the ball, as it was well past him when he initiated the movement that resulted in the blow to Miller's head.
a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
PENALTY:
(1) Two free throws shall be attempted and the ball awarded to the offended team on either side of the court at the free throw line extended.
(2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, the opposing coach will select any player from the bench to attempt the free throws.
(3) This substitute may not be replaced until the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. (EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section V--e.)
(4) The injured player may not return to the game.
(5) A player will be ejected if he commits two flagrant fouls in the same game.
b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul--penalty (2) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
PENALTY:
(1) Two free throws shall be attempted and the ball awarded to the offended team on either side of the court at the free throw line extended.
(2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, his coach will select a substitute and any player from the team is eligible to attempt the free throws.
(3) This substitute may not be replaced until the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section V--e.
(4) The injured player may return to the game at any time after the free throws are attempted.
(5) This is an unsportsmanlike act and the offender is ejected.
c. A flagrant foul may be assessed whether the ball is dead or alive.
The blow itself, while performed by a smaller man on a much larger man, still managed to result in a bloody mouth for Miller. Was this unnecessary? Definitely-- it appeared to be done with the sole intent of knocking Miller down so he could not make the game tying dunk he was about to achieve. Was it excessive? Rondo (6'1"/170 lbs) hit Miller (7'/270 lbs) hard enough in the head to knock a much bigger man down and bloody his mouth.
For this hard hit, Rondo was simply given a standard (not flagrant) foul. Miller missed the two free throws (some would argue due to the intense pain in his mouth and head after being knocked to the floor), and Chicago lost the game by 2 points. In reviewing the play the next day, the NBA decided Rondo would not receive any further sanctions and his foul would not be upgraded to a flagrant 1 or 2.
Now, obviously, this would have been mitigated had Miller made his foul shots and potentially forced overtime (or made the dunk and the subsequent free throw for the victory). However, the fact that he was hit hard enough not to make either the shot or the free throws says something about how hard this hit was. Had this foul been charged a flagrant, though, the Bulls would have had the free throws PLUS the ball -- and could have tried again to tie or win the game. This (non)call changed the outcome of the game.
The very next game, in the first quarter, Rondo threw an elbow at Kirk Hinrich's head area. The video shows Rondo purposefully throwing that elbow. He was assessed a flagrant foul (1) but stayed in the game. The Bulls went on to scrape a triple overtime victory in the game. I mention this foul as Dwight Howard of the Orlando Magic threw a similar elbow at the head area of an opposing player, similarly missed, and was given a flagrant foul (2) and was suspended from playing in the next Magic game -- which the Magic lost. Would the Bulls have needed triple-OT to win that game had Rondo been properly assessed a flagrant 2 and ejected from the game?
The NBA has for years been trying to lessen or eliminate the appearance of bias by the referees. They added the third referee to cut down on "phantom" fouls but, instead, fouls increased. They recently released, fined, and suspended a referee accused of betting on basketball games and did a "thorough" review of all other refs to make sure sports betting wasn't happening. Although some small improprieties were found, no one else was suspended, fined, or held accountable.
Most of my friends and I agree that the following are the main problems:
- The rules as written are too subjective. They allow for too much interpretation. If you rewrite the rules to be more objective, then the fans, players, and refs all know what equals what. For example, if the rules said "Any strike or attempted strike to the head of any sort is a flagrant foul (2) and automatic ejection for the player initiating the strike" everyone would expect the same punishment for Rondo and Howard -- if it didn't happen in-game, then the NBA would assess it the next day. Writing rules objectively will also likely mean a lot of stupid, tick-tack issues will be written out of the rules (hand-check fouls, 3 second violations, making it so that the person who initiates the contact is the one who is called for the foul, no more different rules for stars/super-stars, will reduce the "thug-like" behavior of many players, etc.).
- Referees need to only call fouls they ACTUALLY see. No more phantom calls or, my favorite, the referee completely blocked from seeing the play calling a foul. Also, fouls slow down the flow of the game; only calling what refs see means the game will be faster as fewer fouls will be called. It will also allow players to get more physical, which is one thing that fans in general seem to want (not violent, just physical; bodying up and playing the game).
- Having the rules more objective will allow the rules to be called fairly on everyone. No more "classic" shot of Michael Jordan pushing down an opposing player (not called for offensive foul) and making the game winning shot or Reggie Miller kicking a defender and getting a foul call against that defender for contact. Will this mean that star and super star caliber players will have to adjust? Sure. But that's a good thing.
It All Makes Sense Now
I rarely renew my CostCo card on time. Prior to having my wife in my life, I went about once a year, sometimes twice, and filled up on goods and then didn't go again for months at a time. I often complained to my mother and friends that it seemed like I was constantly renewing my CostCo card and only getting a short amount of use out of it before needing to renew again.
Well, today I got an email about a class-action lawsuit filled against CostCo for all those who renewed their membership between March 1, 2001 and March 31, 2009. It seems that CostCo always made your renewal retroactive to the original renewal date, regardless of when you renewed it. So, for example, let's say your renewal date was April 1. You went in and paid for a twelve month renewal on June 1 (two months after your renewal date). Although you paid for 12 months, your next renewal would come up on April 1 again... 10 months later.
The person who brought the class-action sued because she felt she had paid for 12 months and should get twelve months of membership out of it. I would say she was right, and a judge ruled in her favor against CostCo's renewal policy.
I complained a few years ago to my mom about this; my renewal date was something like October or November. One year I didn't need CostCo so I let it slide until around August. Paid for my membership, went to CostCo and used it, then had to go back around end of November-- and was told I had to renew. I argued with the lady that I had just renewed it in August. I even stopped her line cold (and pissed off a few people in line behind me) and asked to see the manager. I explained the same thing. I got absolutely nowhere. Basically I was offered the choice of adding another almost $50 onto my bill and leave with my goods, or leave without paying anything and without all my goods. I wound up paying and taking my stuff and going, but I sent an angry email to CostCo about it. However, nothing indicated to me that I was paying for the previous 9 months in which I had not used my membership when I had renewed in August.
I see now I should have been more diligent about following up on this. It seems my ranting was right yet again -- I just didn't know why.
In case you're wondering, or if you don't believe me about this, here is the bulk of the email I received:
Well, today I got an email about a class-action lawsuit filled against CostCo for all those who renewed their membership between March 1, 2001 and March 31, 2009. It seems that CostCo always made your renewal retroactive to the original renewal date, regardless of when you renewed it. So, for example, let's say your renewal date was April 1. You went in and paid for a twelve month renewal on June 1 (two months after your renewal date). Although you paid for 12 months, your next renewal would come up on April 1 again... 10 months later.
The person who brought the class-action sued because she felt she had paid for 12 months and should get twelve months of membership out of it. I would say she was right, and a judge ruled in her favor against CostCo's renewal policy.
I complained a few years ago to my mom about this; my renewal date was something like October or November. One year I didn't need CostCo so I let it slide until around August. Paid for my membership, went to CostCo and used it, then had to go back around end of November-- and was told I had to renew. I argued with the lady that I had just renewed it in August. I even stopped her line cold (and pissed off a few people in line behind me) and asked to see the manager. I explained the same thing. I got absolutely nowhere. Basically I was offered the choice of adding another almost $50 onto my bill and leave with my goods, or leave without paying anything and without all my goods. I wound up paying and taking my stuff and going, but I sent an angry email to CostCo about it. However, nothing indicated to me that I was paying for the previous 9 months in which I had not used my membership when I had renewed in August.
I see now I should have been more diligent about following up on this. It seems my ranting was right yet again -- I just didn't know why.
In case you're wondering, or if you don't believe me about this, here is the bulk of the email I received:
| ||||||
April 30, 2009
What the Hell Hit Me?
So, yesterday I'm working at home. I stop a bit late to eat lunch, consisting of Top Ramen beef flavor and chocolate milk. No sooner do I finish than my stomach starts hurting. Not bad, but I figure something just went down wrong.
Over the course of the next hour, the pain becomes unbearable; it hurt to breath, it hurt to swallow, I thought I might vomit, I developed a bad headache, and my breathing became shallow (as it hurt too much to breath deeply). I also developed a cough and started having cold flashes.
M got home around 6:30 pm, and by then I was simply laying on the couch, coughing and hurting and not wanting to do much. The cold flashes had started getting severe; I would shake uncontrollably.
Went to bed early and fell asleep quickly. Woke up today with the same level of headache, my abdomen still sore but not as bad, and still a bit of a nauseated feeling. Luckily, the cough seems to have gone away and so far no cold flashes. Took another long nap after getting up, but still don't feel all that great, though.
Not sure what the hell hit me last night, but it seems closest to food poisoning or an allergic reaction to something. Not sure from what; Top Ramen can survive nuclear fallout and the milk for the chocolate milk is still good.
Needless to say, I'm going to take it slow today and recover. Next on the list, some bland toast. Yum!
Over the course of the next hour, the pain becomes unbearable; it hurt to breath, it hurt to swallow, I thought I might vomit, I developed a bad headache, and my breathing became shallow (as it hurt too much to breath deeply). I also developed a cough and started having cold flashes.
M got home around 6:30 pm, and by then I was simply laying on the couch, coughing and hurting and not wanting to do much. The cold flashes had started getting severe; I would shake uncontrollably.
Went to bed early and fell asleep quickly. Woke up today with the same level of headache, my abdomen still sore but not as bad, and still a bit of a nauseated feeling. Luckily, the cough seems to have gone away and so far no cold flashes. Took another long nap after getting up, but still don't feel all that great, though.
Not sure what the hell hit me last night, but it seems closest to food poisoning or an allergic reaction to something. Not sure from what; Top Ramen can survive nuclear fallout and the milk for the chocolate milk is still good.
Needless to say, I'm going to take it slow today and recover. Next on the list, some bland toast. Yum!
April 24, 2009
A Good Manager
I finally found the correct location online in which to voice my complaints over the poor sound, projection, and food services at our local theater. I sent two emails in, being as specific as I could, and offering suggestion for how I would solve the issues I presented.
First, I got an email from the manager of the local theater. That email asked for me to call in and speak directly with her about my concerns. I called, but had to leave a message. Within 10 minutes I got a call back from her.
She was obviously nervous speaking to me, expecting me to harangue or yell, or something similar, I'm sure. But I was very quickly able to put her at ease, explain that I love movies and just wanted her theater to be the best experience possible. I reiterated my disappointments, explained my solutions, and then let her tell me what they could or could not do.
Next, she said that they went through "a bad stretch" where they had many technical issues, including the poor projection and sound that I mentioned. She said they had just recently completed a "comprehensive" review of the entire theater, fixing and replacing what they could. She expected those issues, barring unforeseen circumstances, of course, were behind them. She also mentioned that they hired a new food services manager who was retraining staff and reconfiguring how they worked the concessions. While this is ongoing, she hopes that by the next time I go to the theater I will see a marked improvement in the speed with which I am served. They have also hired a a bunch of new staff so there are more people working the projection booth. She is also in the process of retraining staff to empower them to fix problems without seeking approval (for those things within their ability to fix, of course).
Lastly, she told me to ask for her by name the next time I go to the theater and she will comp me in (along with my guest-- I probably shouldn't abuse it, so likely my wife or my buddy depending on when we next go).
People sometimes laugh or groan when I tell people I'm going to speak with the manager. I speak with management nearly as often to say how happy I am with a product or service as I do to complain about something being wrong. However, in almost every case it has been to both his/her and my best interest. I often get an apology or comped a little something, which is nice, but more importantly they learn what they are doing right or what they are doing wrong and can fix it. While my wife gets all nervous and feels the need to wait in the car, she often enjoys the fruits of my labors (which, in this case, will be a free movie).
As the summer movie season is nearly here, with some big ticket items coming up in May, I hope that the theater manager is right and that our next movie-watching experience will be superior to the last few. Here's hoping!
First, I got an email from the manager of the local theater. That email asked for me to call in and speak directly with her about my concerns. I called, but had to leave a message. Within 10 minutes I got a call back from her.
She was obviously nervous speaking to me, expecting me to harangue or yell, or something similar, I'm sure. But I was very quickly able to put her at ease, explain that I love movies and just wanted her theater to be the best experience possible. I reiterated my disappointments, explained my solutions, and then let her tell me what they could or could not do.
Next, she said that they went through "a bad stretch" where they had many technical issues, including the poor projection and sound that I mentioned. She said they had just recently completed a "comprehensive" review of the entire theater, fixing and replacing what they could. She expected those issues, barring unforeseen circumstances, of course, were behind them. She also mentioned that they hired a new food services manager who was retraining staff and reconfiguring how they worked the concessions. While this is ongoing, she hopes that by the next time I go to the theater I will see a marked improvement in the speed with which I am served. They have also hired a a bunch of new staff so there are more people working the projection booth. She is also in the process of retraining staff to empower them to fix problems without seeking approval (for those things within their ability to fix, of course).
Lastly, she told me to ask for her by name the next time I go to the theater and she will comp me in (along with my guest-- I probably shouldn't abuse it, so likely my wife or my buddy depending on when we next go).
People sometimes laugh or groan when I tell people I'm going to speak with the manager. I speak with management nearly as often to say how happy I am with a product or service as I do to complain about something being wrong. However, in almost every case it has been to both his/her and my best interest. I often get an apology or comped a little something, which is nice, but more importantly they learn what they are doing right or what they are doing wrong and can fix it. While my wife gets all nervous and feels the need to wait in the car, she often enjoys the fruits of my labors (which, in this case, will be a free movie).
As the summer movie season is nearly here, with some big ticket items coming up in May, I hope that the theater manager is right and that our next movie-watching experience will be superior to the last few. Here's hoping!
April 23, 2009
Friends
For the most part, I have made a smooth transition from SoCal Desert Rat to East Coast wharf rat. I enjoy living with my wife, and I think she's happy I haven't made as many changes as she thought I might to "her house." I have developed a new group of friends with whom I now play Dungeons & Dragons, go to the movies, and other activities.
However, I am really missing my friends in SoCal. I had a good group of friends who worked hard to get together at least once a month. When we couldn't get together as a group, we would still get together as smaller groups for things like lunches. I played online video games with one friend regularly, on a scheduled day, to keep in touch there. I met others often for lunch, as they were in offices close by. My mother would drive down every now and then and we would go out to breakfast, watch a movie, or do something.
Since joining Facebook, I have found even more friends in my former area that now want to get together-- and I'm sad to say I'm so far away and can't do it. I'd love to touch base with these people and see what's going on.
The four hour time difference is really bugging me, too. Not only do the few Lakers games I can watch typically start around 11:30 pm local time, but it makes it hard to play those same online games with my friends in SoCal -- when they log on at 7 pm, it is already 11 pm here. Now that I'm working, I can't play until 1 or 2 am as easily to get in some quality time with them. I would be a big proponent of those who want to start up the measure to switch NB to EST! That extra hour would make a huge difference to many aspects of life in general, but would help so much in my particular case.
I am only now nearing the end of my first year here in SJ. I'm sure that is why I'm feeling this moreso than before, and it will likely get easier as time goes by. While I've made some great new friends, I'm definitely missing the old friends.
PS - this is my 666 post on this site. Spooky number. :-)
However, I am really missing my friends in SoCal. I had a good group of friends who worked hard to get together at least once a month. When we couldn't get together as a group, we would still get together as smaller groups for things like lunches. I played online video games with one friend regularly, on a scheduled day, to keep in touch there. I met others often for lunch, as they were in offices close by. My mother would drive down every now and then and we would go out to breakfast, watch a movie, or do something.
Since joining Facebook, I have found even more friends in my former area that now want to get together-- and I'm sad to say I'm so far away and can't do it. I'd love to touch base with these people and see what's going on.
The four hour time difference is really bugging me, too. Not only do the few Lakers games I can watch typically start around 11:30 pm local time, but it makes it hard to play those same online games with my friends in SoCal -- when they log on at 7 pm, it is already 11 pm here. Now that I'm working, I can't play until 1 or 2 am as easily to get in some quality time with them. I would be a big proponent of those who want to start up the measure to switch NB to EST! That extra hour would make a huge difference to many aspects of life in general, but would help so much in my particular case.
I am only now nearing the end of my first year here in SJ. I'm sure that is why I'm feeling this moreso than before, and it will likely get easier as time goes by. While I've made some great new friends, I'm definitely missing the old friends.
PS - this is my 666 post on this site. Spooky number. :-)
April 22, 2009
The Lion's Roar
Coming off the first-ever 0-16 season by an NFL team, the woeful Detroit Lions have to do something to turn around the team, the city, and regain some pride in the NFL.
They got a new coach with a pretty good winning pedigree -- Jim Schwartz. They also have two first-round picks in the draft this weekend, numbers 1 (obviously) and 20 (from Dallas for the Roy Williams trade). They fired Matt Millen, the worst GM in the NFL during his tenure. They jettisoned all of the negative Nancies from the locker room.
Now, for the piece de resistance -- they updated their uniforms, logo, and font. The unis and the font are negligible, but the change to the logo is a nice one.
The original logo looked like this:
A nice logo. Gives a good feeling of a lion, but doesn't have much depth or detail to it.
The new logo, while not a huge transition, has some subtle changes to make it look more fierce and give it some dimension:
With the black outlining, the white accents giving the lion depth and detail, and adding a mouth with teeth and eyes, the new logo looks energetic, fierce, and ready to roar.
The big question is, of course, if such a cosmetic change can help the city, players, and staff feel differently about a team that has been a doorstop in the NFL for many years (since Barry Sanders retired, and even before). This is a team, after all, that has not been to the Super Bowl since it was created, last winning a league championship in 1957. For that matter, they have only made it past the first round of the playoffs once since then (in 1991, beating Dallas in the first round and losing badly to the eventual SB winning Redskins in the NFC championship game)!
On the other hand, maybe this change expresses all of the intangibles the team has seen with the new coach, the new staff, and the stronger locker room personality? Help those who remain to move past the "0-fer" season and look forward to making a new start this season?
Either way, I like it. It is a good change, and I hope it is well-received by the fans and the rest of the NFL.
Now, if we can just get some victories this season to go with the new look....
They got a new coach with a pretty good winning pedigree -- Jim Schwartz. They also have two first-round picks in the draft this weekend, numbers 1 (obviously) and 20 (from Dallas for the Roy Williams trade). They fired Matt Millen, the worst GM in the NFL during his tenure. They jettisoned all of the negative Nancies from the locker room.
Now, for the piece de resistance -- they updated their uniforms, logo, and font. The unis and the font are negligible, but the change to the logo is a nice one.
The original logo looked like this:
A nice logo. Gives a good feeling of a lion, but doesn't have much depth or detail to it.The new logo, while not a huge transition, has some subtle changes to make it look more fierce and give it some dimension:
With the black outlining, the white accents giving the lion depth and detail, and adding a mouth with teeth and eyes, the new logo looks energetic, fierce, and ready to roar.The big question is, of course, if such a cosmetic change can help the city, players, and staff feel differently about a team that has been a doorstop in the NFL for many years (since Barry Sanders retired, and even before). This is a team, after all, that has not been to the Super Bowl since it was created, last winning a league championship in 1957. For that matter, they have only made it past the first round of the playoffs once since then (in 1991, beating Dallas in the first round and losing badly to the eventual SB winning Redskins in the NFC championship game)!
On the other hand, maybe this change expresses all of the intangibles the team has seen with the new coach, the new staff, and the stronger locker room personality? Help those who remain to move past the "0-fer" season and look forward to making a new start this season?
Either way, I like it. It is a good change, and I hope it is well-received by the fans and the rest of the NFL.
Now, if we can just get some victories this season to go with the new look....
April 14, 2009
Doctors
A few months ago I managed to get in to see an RA doctor here, ending one of my quests for medical representation since the move. Dr. Grant is a quiet, efficient, and well-respected doctor, and a lot of people were surprised that I got attached to his practice.
Today I saw Dr. Gillis, a new GE doctor who just hung out his shingle. He seems nice, and he seems to know his stuff. He appeared to like that I brought my former GE history with me, and he made a copy of a few things for his records. He wants to run some tests of his own, get to know me and my case, and seemed to genuinely be concerned about my care.
I'm on a waiting list for a GP/family doctor to "oversee" my medical needs; until then, it is up to me and balanced between my two specialists. I'm on the waiting list, but as a friend here recently has a two-year wait before he got a call for a new GP, I'm not holding my breath. Hopefully we'll hear something in the nearer time frame, though.
Next step is getting Dr. Grant to ween me off the prednisone and onto something else. Then, maybe, I can lose the 20 lbs I've gained being on that evil (but highly effective) medication. We'll see.
Today I saw Dr. Gillis, a new GE doctor who just hung out his shingle. He seems nice, and he seems to know his stuff. He appeared to like that I brought my former GE history with me, and he made a copy of a few things for his records. He wants to run some tests of his own, get to know me and my case, and seemed to genuinely be concerned about my care.
I'm on a waiting list for a GP/family doctor to "oversee" my medical needs; until then, it is up to me and balanced between my two specialists. I'm on the waiting list, but as a friend here recently has a two-year wait before he got a call for a new GP, I'm not holding my breath. Hopefully we'll hear something in the nearer time frame, though.
Next step is getting Dr. Grant to ween me off the prednisone and onto something else. Then, maybe, I can lose the 20 lbs I've gained being on that evil (but highly effective) medication. We'll see.
April 12, 2009
Easter
Woke up this morning to the following:
First time ever in my life that Easter came with snow. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Seems strange and messes with my internal clock.
First time ever in my life that Easter came with snow. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Seems strange and messes with my internal clock.
April 9, 2009
Life
Life is very likely the best TV show on network TV that you aren't watching. It is superbly written, has likable and charismatic stars, has a different note or edge to it than other cop dramas, and has a twist. One of the things I like most about it is how it presents a season-long puzzle and then carries that through as either a primary or secondary storyline through each episode.
The first season was picture-perfect. I watch a lot of TV, read a lot of books, and understand plot, pacing, and how storytellers try to distract or shake up the audience. Because of this, I am rarely surprised when watching most shows; I am well-known for guessing the perpetrater very early in the show (ask my wife-- she is constantly annoyed by my ability to guess plots, character motivations, etc. before she has even nailed down what's going on). This show, especially in the first season, was able to constantly surprise me; not, as you may think, with the surprise itself, but with the reason for it. Charlie Crews did the unsuspecting thing each time. When you think he's going to kill someone for revenge, instead he saves them. When you think he's going to let someone walk or that he really is dirty, he arrests them or proves how clean he is. The combination of Zen philosophy, revenge for being imprisoned, and righteous cop mentality make the character one who you haven't seen on other shows. He's a combination of Mr. Miyagi and Vic Mackey, with a little bit of Jim Rockford or Thomas Magnum thrown in.
I'll grant that the writer's strike and long layoff caused the second season to start a little shaky. The writing was still good, but didn't have the same ... crispness as the first season. The episode with the frozen scientist was a particularly poor one, relatively speaking. However, the show regained its footing and proceeded to get better and better through the finale this week. The final 10 minutes of the finale were, once again, pitch-perfect; the mix of Zen, detective work, and violence was just right.
The addition of Gabrielle Union, filling in for a pregnant Sarah Shahi, was inspired. Her character was totally different from Reese, Shahi's character, and the other characters just took it in stride. Donal Logue also seemed to get more comfortable with his role and character as the season progressed. The remaining regulars did their usual solid job.
The one thing that makes this show hard on new viewers, though, is the ongoing storyline. Just like with X-Files or Veronica Mars, which were new-viewer hostile, Life's ongoing plotline of Crews trying to figure out who sent him to prison and why makes it hard for a new viewer to step in and just enjoy an episode and try it out. But, if a new viewer were to play catch up and watch it from the beginning, I think he/she would get hooked.
Another detraction is that, while the character of Charlie Crews is quite interesting, some seem put off by the actor playing him, Damien Lewis. Both his unique look and his presentation of the character may dissuade some viewers, as he is not in the mold of the typical male lead on TV. However, I think his timing, his ability to play both the serious and comical sides of Crews, and his great chemistry with his costars can get any viewer past that, given he or she makes an effort to watch the show and learn what is going on.
My hope is that this is only the season finale and not the series finale. The show is averaging a 6 which, while not great, is steady and solid. NBC has consistently tanked every show that averaged a 6 or lower and replaced it with ... a show that averaged 6 or lower. I would like to think the powers that be would give this show a little room to grow and gain more audience before they axe it. I can't imagine that it is very expensive to film, compared to some of their other content. The network should take a Bird in the Hand approach to this show and try to grow it.
If you are into watching TV shows on DVD, or catch some sort of marathon, I recommend you watch season 1 and 2 of Life, in order and from the beginning. You might just get hooked.
UPDATE
They did cancel the show after the second season finale. Damien Lewis has gone on to some critical success in "Homeland." Sarah Shahi has a few good roles, and currently can be seen on "Person of Interest."
The first season was picture-perfect. I watch a lot of TV, read a lot of books, and understand plot, pacing, and how storytellers try to distract or shake up the audience. Because of this, I am rarely surprised when watching most shows; I am well-known for guessing the perpetrater very early in the show (ask my wife-- she is constantly annoyed by my ability to guess plots, character motivations, etc. before she has even nailed down what's going on). This show, especially in the first season, was able to constantly surprise me; not, as you may think, with the surprise itself, but with the reason for it. Charlie Crews did the unsuspecting thing each time. When you think he's going to kill someone for revenge, instead he saves them. When you think he's going to let someone walk or that he really is dirty, he arrests them or proves how clean he is. The combination of Zen philosophy, revenge for being imprisoned, and righteous cop mentality make the character one who you haven't seen on other shows. He's a combination of Mr. Miyagi and Vic Mackey, with a little bit of Jim Rockford or Thomas Magnum thrown in.
I'll grant that the writer's strike and long layoff caused the second season to start a little shaky. The writing was still good, but didn't have the same ... crispness as the first season. The episode with the frozen scientist was a particularly poor one, relatively speaking. However, the show regained its footing and proceeded to get better and better through the finale this week. The final 10 minutes of the finale were, once again, pitch-perfect; the mix of Zen, detective work, and violence was just right.
The addition of Gabrielle Union, filling in for a pregnant Sarah Shahi, was inspired. Her character was totally different from Reese, Shahi's character, and the other characters just took it in stride. Donal Logue also seemed to get more comfortable with his role and character as the season progressed. The remaining regulars did their usual solid job.
The one thing that makes this show hard on new viewers, though, is the ongoing storyline. Just like with X-Files or Veronica Mars, which were new-viewer hostile, Life's ongoing plotline of Crews trying to figure out who sent him to prison and why makes it hard for a new viewer to step in and just enjoy an episode and try it out. But, if a new viewer were to play catch up and watch it from the beginning, I think he/she would get hooked.
Another detraction is that, while the character of Charlie Crews is quite interesting, some seem put off by the actor playing him, Damien Lewis. Both his unique look and his presentation of the character may dissuade some viewers, as he is not in the mold of the typical male lead on TV. However, I think his timing, his ability to play both the serious and comical sides of Crews, and his great chemistry with his costars can get any viewer past that, given he or she makes an effort to watch the show and learn what is going on.
My hope is that this is only the season finale and not the series finale. The show is averaging a 6 which, while not great, is steady and solid. NBC has consistently tanked every show that averaged a 6 or lower and replaced it with ... a show that averaged 6 or lower. I would like to think the powers that be would give this show a little room to grow and gain more audience before they axe it. I can't imagine that it is very expensive to film, compared to some of their other content. The network should take a Bird in the Hand approach to this show and try to grow it.
If you are into watching TV shows on DVD, or catch some sort of marathon, I recommend you watch season 1 and 2 of Life, in order and from the beginning. You might just get hooked.
UPDATE
They did cancel the show after the second season finale. Damien Lewis has gone on to some critical success in "Homeland." Sarah Shahi has a few good roles, and currently can be seen on "Person of Interest."
March 30, 2009
The Road Back... To Work
It looks like I will be starting my first Canadian job tomorrow. Coast Tire has offered a three-month contract position for me to help them write a bunch of how-to sheets, update and proof their existing manuals, and help with some other items, as needed (like possibly their website).
I'm sure it will be good work and, as a contractor and working hourly, I'll have the flexibility to work from home and work odd hours if needed (I do have some medical appointments coming up and may need to interview for a full-time position if some irons heat up in the fire, etc.).
It will likely be awkward working with my wife, however. There is a certain separation between your work life and your personal life that most people desire, and having your spouse intrude into one can be difficult. I'm hopeful it won't be an issue as I won't be right with her, will work with other people on their documentation needs, and won't press too hard. Plus, it is a part-time job; I'll be there only as long as they need me and have work for me to do.
One awkward issue is the fact we will both report to the same manager. I did ask the company to check to see if Canada has a similar law to US about not allowing married or related people to report to the same manager (or to one another, if one is a manager). The company does not believe so, but is double-checking just in case.
So, tomorrow I have to get up, get dressed, and head into work with my wife. As I was released from employment at my previous company at the end of May, it winds up being nearly a year since I last formally worked. It will be exciting and interesting to get back into the swing of things.
PS - As a reward, I bought a 22" LCD monitor that was on a ridiculous sale. I've used my current 17" monitor for... about 7 years (maybe longer). Since I love playing games, bigger is definitely better. Plus, my video card has the DVI input and this new monitor has DVI output, so I should have the best, clearest, fastest possible (my current monitor is a standard VGA).
I'm sure it will be good work and, as a contractor and working hourly, I'll have the flexibility to work from home and work odd hours if needed (I do have some medical appointments coming up and may need to interview for a full-time position if some irons heat up in the fire, etc.).
It will likely be awkward working with my wife, however. There is a certain separation between your work life and your personal life that most people desire, and having your spouse intrude into one can be difficult. I'm hopeful it won't be an issue as I won't be right with her, will work with other people on their documentation needs, and won't press too hard. Plus, it is a part-time job; I'll be there only as long as they need me and have work for me to do.
One awkward issue is the fact we will both report to the same manager. I did ask the company to check to see if Canada has a similar law to US about not allowing married or related people to report to the same manager (or to one another, if one is a manager). The company does not believe so, but is double-checking just in case.
So, tomorrow I have to get up, get dressed, and head into work with my wife. As I was released from employment at my previous company at the end of May, it winds up being nearly a year since I last formally worked. It will be exciting and interesting to get back into the swing of things.
- - -
PS - As a reward, I bought a 22" LCD monitor that was on a ridiculous sale. I've used my current 17" monitor for... about 7 years (maybe longer). Since I love playing games, bigger is definitely better. Plus, my video card has the DVI input and this new monitor has DVI output, so I should have the best, clearest, fastest possible (my current monitor is a standard VGA).
March 24, 2009
Spring Sprung
Since moving here I have consistently been excited by my first winter. I haven't seen this much snow, well, ever, and, although I dislike some of what that brings (the bad driving conditions, shoveling, falling on head due to ice, etc.), I have really enjoyed watching it fall and coat the ground with a clean white slate.
However, this week is my first where I'm having difficulty. In Southern California, Spring ... springs! By the end of March and beginning of April, temperatures are rising, the winds start to die down, the rains come, and the entire area starts blooming and the animals and birds return. The world begins to look alive.
And, well, that is what I've been used to for 37 of my years.
So, to find it snowing after the first day of Spring has been a disappointment. Not that I don't like the snow -- as I said, I still enjoy watching it -- but more because my internal clock is set to "temps rise, things bloom, life returns" at this point of the year.
My wife tells me we may be running the stove into mid-April. We may have at or below freezing temps through April and into May. And, of course, Spring and Summer are very short seasons here because of it.
So, for the first time since moving here, I'm feeling a bit down and bit disconsolate due to the weather. I'm sure, once I get fully acclimated and my body has a chance to relearn its internal clock, this will fade. But right now, today, watching the violent wind throw fine powdery snow around, I'm feeling a bit blue.
However, this week is my first where I'm having difficulty. In Southern California, Spring ... springs! By the end of March and beginning of April, temperatures are rising, the winds start to die down, the rains come, and the entire area starts blooming and the animals and birds return. The world begins to look alive.
And, well, that is what I've been used to for 37 of my years.
So, to find it snowing after the first day of Spring has been a disappointment. Not that I don't like the snow -- as I said, I still enjoy watching it -- but more because my internal clock is set to "temps rise, things bloom, life returns" at this point of the year.
My wife tells me we may be running the stove into mid-April. We may have at or below freezing temps through April and into May. And, of course, Spring and Summer are very short seasons here because of it.
So, for the first time since moving here, I'm feeling a bit down and bit disconsolate due to the weather. I'm sure, once I get fully acclimated and my body has a chance to relearn its internal clock, this will fade. But right now, today, watching the violent wind throw fine powdery snow around, I'm feeling a bit blue.
March 17, 2009
Universal IM
I have a few friends or family on each of the big four IM clients; MSN, Yahoo, Google Chat, and AIM. Since these companies are, apparently, patently stupid and refuse to work together to come up with one universal IM protocol, I have been once again searching for a third-party universal chat client that I can use.
Pidgin is pretty good. It allows you to connect to all the main and a few of the smaller chat protocols pretty easily. However, some of them require a bit of effort. You don't have a lot of leeway in fonts, styles, windows, or emoticons, and the transfer files feature is a little hit or miss. However, I used the product from this group before they renamed it to Pidgin, and the Pidgin version is much better, easier, and simpler. Note that Adium is the Mac OS X client built on the same client as this app.
I like the Trillian IM client. It is fast, nice to look at, and fairly simple to set up. However, the free client doesn't allow Jabber, which is the protocol used to connect to Google Chat. That's a major disadvantage for me, and I'm not sure the $25 is worth it to gain this one client in the Pro edition. It has a variety of emoticons, allows for the system fonts to be used, and has an email checker for each of the services you sign up for.
Qnext is a Java IM client. It was quick to setup, had options to allow all the main protocols I need, and looks pretty good. However, it has the typical problems of any java app -- it displays things in windows that are too small, it makes a lot of assumptions, and the interface is not very user-friendly (when will Java programmers learn to actually listen to the client base?). In addition, I can see no way for it to check for emails on the clients I installed, there is limited to no individual sorting of the IM list (I like to put my most used IM partners at the top of the list), and font setup seems to be limited on a per-window/IM basis (and there are very, very few emoticons available). On the plus side, there is a client to allow you to access your PC from any other PC when both are running Qnext. Which I can see being an advantage.
I just installed Digsby. It has all the clients I want (and then some), has all the options I want (and then some), has all the features I want (and then some). It has a lot of customizability, allows for email and social networking clients, has a very small install, and is pleasant to use. I think we have a winner!
Pidgin is pretty good. It allows you to connect to all the main and a few of the smaller chat protocols pretty easily. However, some of them require a bit of effort. You don't have a lot of leeway in fonts, styles, windows, or emoticons, and the transfer files feature is a little hit or miss. However, I used the product from this group before they renamed it to Pidgin, and the Pidgin version is much better, easier, and simpler. Note that Adium is the Mac OS X client built on the same client as this app.
I like the Trillian IM client. It is fast, nice to look at, and fairly simple to set up. However, the free client doesn't allow Jabber, which is the protocol used to connect to Google Chat. That's a major disadvantage for me, and I'm not sure the $25 is worth it to gain this one client in the Pro edition. It has a variety of emoticons, allows for the system fonts to be used, and has an email checker for each of the services you sign up for.
Qnext is a Java IM client. It was quick to setup, had options to allow all the main protocols I need, and looks pretty good. However, it has the typical problems of any java app -- it displays things in windows that are too small, it makes a lot of assumptions, and the interface is not very user-friendly (when will Java programmers learn to actually listen to the client base?). In addition, I can see no way for it to check for emails on the clients I installed, there is limited to no individual sorting of the IM list (I like to put my most used IM partners at the top of the list), and font setup seems to be limited on a per-window/IM basis (and there are very, very few emoticons available). On the plus side, there is a client to allow you to access your PC from any other PC when both are running Qnext. Which I can see being an advantage.
I just installed Digsby. It has all the clients I want (and then some), has all the options I want (and then some), has all the features I want (and then some). It has a lot of customizability, allows for email and social networking clients, has a very small install, and is pleasant to use. I think we have a winner!
March 16, 2009
Through Rain and Snow... But Not Directly!
I ordered some items from ThinkGeek. The shipment was in prior to 1 pm EST, so the order was cleared that day and the next day it shipped. The warehouse the order shipped from is in Edison, NJ. I'm following the UPS Tracking on the order as it is being shipped to ME and I will need to run down to get it (plus some groceries and such).
Here is, so far, the route this one 3.7 lb package has taken:
My question: is this the best route this package could take? There isn't a way to ship it straight to, say, Portland or Bangor and then drive it up to Calais in a "usual" shipment? It just seems odd that this one package is taking the scenic route and stopping so many places along the way.
It seems more efficient to me to have large city transports on a regular basis, and then drive from those large cities to the smaller ones as needed and as packages come in. These shipping companies have been doing this along time; I'm guessing they've worked out the kinks by now. Still surprises me to watch this package go through its paces.
Addendum 3/17:
Sure enough, the package finished with:
Here is, so far, the route this one 3.7 lb package has taken:
- Departed Edison, NJ 3/14 and arrived in Parsippany, NJ 3/14 (about 40 miles).
- Departed Parsippany, NJ 3/14 and arrived in Hartford, CT 3/14 (about 145 miles).
- Departed Hartford, CT 3/16 and arrived in Chelmsford, MA 3/16 (about 105 miles).
My question: is this the best route this package could take? There isn't a way to ship it straight to, say, Portland or Bangor and then drive it up to Calais in a "usual" shipment? It just seems odd that this one package is taking the scenic route and stopping so many places along the way.
It seems more efficient to me to have large city transports on a regular basis, and then drive from those large cities to the smaller ones as needed and as packages come in. These shipping companies have been doing this along time; I'm guessing they've worked out the kinks by now. Still surprises me to watch this package go through its paces.
Addendum 3/17:
Sure enough, the package finished with:
- Chelmsford, MA 3/16 to Brewer, ME 3/17.
- Brewer, ME 3/17 to Baileyville, ME 3/17.
- Baileyville, ME 3/17 to Calais, ME 3/17 (final destination).
March 14, 2009
ER Closure
Here's what indicates to me that it is good that the once-great show ER is finally closing its doors after this season-- the episode this week with Noah Wyle, Eriq LaSalle, George Clooney, and Julianna Margulies had me caring more about the show than any time in the last 2-3 years. Having those characters back made me interested and involved in the show again.
Neela used to be a decent character, but now she's just the whore of the ER. The annoying prick from Australia is a waste of space. Angela Bassett's character is one-note at best (which is too bad for such a great actress), and John Stamos' character is just, well, a combo of Carter and Greene redux.
As I said to my wife as we watched this week's episode, "It is like putting on a comfortable old pair of shoes" in reference to having Carter, Ross, Hathaway, and Benton back on the show. I want to know what they are doing and what has gone on since they all left the ER. As for the new cast, I had to struggle not to fast forward whenever they were on camera.
So, in the end, it is good that the ER is closing its doors.
Neela used to be a decent character, but now she's just the whore of the ER. The annoying prick from Australia is a waste of space. Angela Bassett's character is one-note at best (which is too bad for such a great actress), and John Stamos' character is just, well, a combo of Carter and Greene redux.
As I said to my wife as we watched this week's episode, "It is like putting on a comfortable old pair of shoes" in reference to having Carter, Ross, Hathaway, and Benton back on the show. I want to know what they are doing and what has gone on since they all left the ER. As for the new cast, I had to struggle not to fast forward whenever they were on camera.
So, in the end, it is good that the ER is closing its doors.
March 11, 2009
De Pain!
Well over a week ago (probably closer to two weeks, now), I did something to cause my lower back to give me pain. Now, due to RA, I'm in pain a lot-- but usually low throbbing/swelling pain that I can handle, but which affects my desire to do certain activities. This was sharp, acute pain that became "gasp-worthy" if I leaned forward at about a 10% angle or more and jars me badly as I go up and down the stairs to the basement.
Since then, I have taken long, hot showers and baths. I have used a heating pad. I have alternated hot and cold. I have upped my prednisone intake and tried supplementing with Advil. Nothing has really helped it.
Yesterday, the pain was at manageable levels for the first time in a while. By the end of the day, it seemed like it was improving and the kink or whatever it was would be gone soon. I took another very hot bath in the mid-afternoon, and that also seemed to help relax things and bring the pain under control.
However, last night, wife and I watched some TV together, and the position I was in seemed to exacerbate the problem and now, today, my back hurts as much as it did when I first discovered the problem.
While my tailbone area is sore, too, the problem is not the spine-- there is a spot just to the right of the spine where the muscles feel hard as rocks and it hurts to press against those muscles. When I bend my back the least bit, this area sends spasms and lances of pain out from that region into my buttocks, back, and sides. The pain is enough that I tend to groan or gasp each time. I woke up every single time I moved last night while attempting to sleep-- the pain of moving was enough to wake me from a sound sleep.
Not sure what I can do about it. We have things that need to be done and nothing I do seems to help the pain. I'm obviously going to avoid that position on the couch for awhile and continue to use meds and/or heat and cold to alleviate the discomfort. Beyond that, nothing really helped for the last over a week, so I don't expect anything to really help me now.
Since then, I have taken long, hot showers and baths. I have used a heating pad. I have alternated hot and cold. I have upped my prednisone intake and tried supplementing with Advil. Nothing has really helped it.
Yesterday, the pain was at manageable levels for the first time in a while. By the end of the day, it seemed like it was improving and the kink or whatever it was would be gone soon. I took another very hot bath in the mid-afternoon, and that also seemed to help relax things and bring the pain under control.
However, last night, wife and I watched some TV together, and the position I was in seemed to exacerbate the problem and now, today, my back hurts as much as it did when I first discovered the problem.
While my tailbone area is sore, too, the problem is not the spine-- there is a spot just to the right of the spine where the muscles feel hard as rocks and it hurts to press against those muscles. When I bend my back the least bit, this area sends spasms and lances of pain out from that region into my buttocks, back, and sides. The pain is enough that I tend to groan or gasp each time. I woke up every single time I moved last night while attempting to sleep-- the pain of moving was enough to wake me from a sound sleep.
Not sure what I can do about it. We have things that need to be done and nothing I do seems to help the pain. I'm obviously going to avoid that position on the couch for awhile and continue to use meds and/or heat and cold to alleviate the discomfort. Beyond that, nothing really helped for the last over a week, so I don't expect anything to really help me now.
March 10, 2009
Chicken or Egg?
A recent responder to one of my posts thought that the talent in a league getting 60% of the revenue for that league seemed low. His/her argument was that the talent brings in the audience and, without talent, the league fails.
Yet, without the league, there is no recourse for the talent to shine and bring in ad revenue and gate. Most of the professional leagues were created well before there was a "talent pool" from which to pull to increase the gate.
It becomes something of a chicken and egg argument-- if there is no league, the talent can't shine and without the talent, the league doesn't shine.
I fall on the side of the league. If you have a venue, a certain core audience is going to find you and pay attention. By doing this, the audience allows the league to make a certain amount of money. Now, if spent wisely, the league can go after talent (possibly from other sports or from college ranks, etc.) that may be unique and interesting enough to expand the audience, which brings in more money.
For example, the NBA survived for many years with little of what we would call super-stars today. People were not paid as well and they didn't make the news or onto sports shows (which were also in their infancy). However, it was popular enough that other people decided to compete against it and created the ABA. The ABA took a different economic model toward its product, hyping the excitement of the players and the talent pool more than the game or match ups. It then actively pursued talent like Dr. J, which then brought in more revenue. In the end, the NBA bought out the ABA, learned some lessons from it, and started hyping the talent as another means by which to bring in money.
Soon, it had the talent like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Charles Barkley, et al, to market around, further increasing its ability to market, get on the TV and into sports news, and bringing in more revenue. Finally, it created the quintessential marketing person for the industry, Michael Jordan, and the money shot into the stratosphere. Players were able to demand more, every team needed a "super-star" in order to compete for gate, TV time, and ad revenues.
Now, all those who play in the NBA feel a sense of entitlement that they deserve that money, even though the gate is down, the ad money is drying up, and the league is losing money in many areas due to the current economic crisis. You have people making millions a year in the richest league (by average player salary) in the land feeling disrespected that they can't get a contract extension, can't get a new contract, or can't force a trade-- all during a time when the jobless rate is hitting highs never before seen and the people who ultimately pay those salaries cannot afford to go to see the product OR the talent any more.
So, while I respect my Anonymous responder's argument, I see it from the other side: without the league and the fans, there is no talent and that talent doesn't get paid. So that talent better be willing to make sacrifices and be careful of how he talks about his millions to those unfortunate people who are out of a job, lost their life's savings, and are desperate for help.
Yet, without the league, there is no recourse for the talent to shine and bring in ad revenue and gate. Most of the professional leagues were created well before there was a "talent pool" from which to pull to increase the gate.
It becomes something of a chicken and egg argument-- if there is no league, the talent can't shine and without the talent, the league doesn't shine.
I fall on the side of the league. If you have a venue, a certain core audience is going to find you and pay attention. By doing this, the audience allows the league to make a certain amount of money. Now, if spent wisely, the league can go after talent (possibly from other sports or from college ranks, etc.) that may be unique and interesting enough to expand the audience, which brings in more money.
For example, the NBA survived for many years with little of what we would call super-stars today. People were not paid as well and they didn't make the news or onto sports shows (which were also in their infancy). However, it was popular enough that other people decided to compete against it and created the ABA. The ABA took a different economic model toward its product, hyping the excitement of the players and the talent pool more than the game or match ups. It then actively pursued talent like Dr. J, which then brought in more revenue. In the end, the NBA bought out the ABA, learned some lessons from it, and started hyping the talent as another means by which to bring in money.
Soon, it had the talent like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Charles Barkley, et al, to market around, further increasing its ability to market, get on the TV and into sports news, and bringing in more revenue. Finally, it created the quintessential marketing person for the industry, Michael Jordan, and the money shot into the stratosphere. Players were able to demand more, every team needed a "super-star" in order to compete for gate, TV time, and ad revenues.
Now, all those who play in the NBA feel a sense of entitlement that they deserve that money, even though the gate is down, the ad money is drying up, and the league is losing money in many areas due to the current economic crisis. You have people making millions a year in the richest league (by average player salary) in the land feeling disrespected that they can't get a contract extension, can't get a new contract, or can't force a trade-- all during a time when the jobless rate is hitting highs never before seen and the people who ultimately pay those salaries cannot afford to go to see the product OR the talent any more.
So, while I respect my Anonymous responder's argument, I see it from the other side: without the league and the fans, there is no talent and that talent doesn't get paid. So that talent better be willing to make sacrifices and be careful of how he talks about his millions to those unfortunate people who are out of a job, lost their life's savings, and are desperate for help.
March 6, 2009
Ad Woes?
I was a bit surprised that Slumdog Millionaire had no previews at all. Then The Wrestler only had one.
One of the reasons that production companies show previews before movies is because they have a rapt audience. There is only one thing to do/look at and everyone's attention is focused. To have 1 total ad prior to two movies was... odd.
Note: Wife and I have discussed this, and we agree that there should be a small pamphlet with the previewed movies available at theaters. We watched one movie that had something like 8 previews (which is a bit excessive-- 3-4 at most, guys!), and we couldn't remember the first three by the time the last one was playing. However, a couple were intriguing to us but, since we couldn't remember the titles, we had to just move on. If there had been a pamphlet outside the theater that showed the previews shown for that movie, we could have picked it up and had the movie title and main relevant info for it right in hand.
One of the reasons that production companies show previews before movies is because they have a rapt audience. There is only one thing to do/look at and everyone's attention is focused. To have 1 total ad prior to two movies was... odd.
Note: Wife and I have discussed this, and we agree that there should be a small pamphlet with the previewed movies available at theaters. We watched one movie that had something like 8 previews (which is a bit excessive-- 3-4 at most, guys!), and we couldn't remember the first three by the time the last one was playing. However, a couple were intriguing to us but, since we couldn't remember the titles, we had to just move on. If there had been a pamphlet outside the theater that showed the previews shown for that movie, we could have picked it up and had the movie title and main relevant info for it right in hand.
March 5, 2009
Two Great Movies
I recently watched both Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler, and I have to say I was impressed by both of them.
Slumdog has a great soundtrack, an inspiring story, and a fine ensemble cast that makes the story work. While I do not generally like flashbacks, this story used them to great effect and as what they are meant to be-- a storytelling device (rather than what so many movies try to use them for-- a device to create tension). You see the "slumdog," a poor boy from the dregs of society, answering questions posed to him by the host of the Who Wants to be a Millionaire show in India. After each question, but usually prior to his giving an answer, you flash back to his hard life and how he learned the answers. The story is about what motivates him to do everything he does.
The direction on this is fast, frenetic, and colorful, but avoids the usual pitfalls of "shaky cam" and too many quick cuts. The movie's silent costar is India itself; the locations, colors, sounds, and spirit of the land pervade the movie and I have a hard time believing that the same film made in another region would reverberate as well.
The Wrestler, on the other hand, is about a broken down man who is holding onto his fame twenty years after his heyday. His body is failing him, his mind is going, but he cannot give up the adoration of the fans or the rush he gets when they cheer him on or chant his name. He has deluded himself into thinking he has a relationship with an aging stripper, he wants to try a fresh start with his estranged daughter, and prove that he matters. After a heart attack, he finds the shock of the "real world" too much and he would rather risk his life by going back to the ring to hear the fans shout his name than be a no one with the stripper.
The documentary style shoot helps to impress upon the viewer the stark realities of this man's life. However, the exclusive one-camera style sometimes made me a little nauseated when the camera would swing 180 from one person to the other and back. I especially liked the fact that they didn't have great exposition into why these people are the way they are; too many films explain every character trait and nuance away, and leave nothing to the imagination of the viewer. In this film, you don't know the back story of the stripper, you don't know what happened to cause Randy to leave his daughter and become estranged. You just pick it up in the middle, learn what you can, and move on.
Mickey Rourke is fabulous in it. I'm not a big fan, thinking he peaked about 9 1/2 Weeks and has been going downhill since. But this role was practically written for him and it is great that he went into it full bore and balls out. I think this would have been a great choice for the Academy Award for best male performance and would have been an awesome counterpoint to Heath Ledger's supporting Oscar; one role (The Ram) allowed the actor (Rourke) to take so much of his actual life and use it to make a role feel even more real, while the other (The Joker) allowed the actor (Ledger) to create a fictional character from whole cloth and make it so totally real and frightening. Each shows the opposite end of the acting spectrum but both were extraordinary performances that deserved awards.
I agree with those who thought Bruce Springsteen's end credits song should have been nominated for an Academy Award. It was a powerful, stripped down, bare bones song that fit perfectly with the movie. I'm not saying it was better than the three songs nominated (or the Slumdog song that won), but it was certainly a worthy effort for nomination. It actually would have been a stark contrast to the upbeat, driving force of the songs from Slumdog, and would have given Academy voters something different to consider.
All in all, two great movies that deserved the accolades they received.
Slumdog has a great soundtrack, an inspiring story, and a fine ensemble cast that makes the story work. While I do not generally like flashbacks, this story used them to great effect and as what they are meant to be-- a storytelling device (rather than what so many movies try to use them for-- a device to create tension). You see the "slumdog," a poor boy from the dregs of society, answering questions posed to him by the host of the Who Wants to be a Millionaire show in India. After each question, but usually prior to his giving an answer, you flash back to his hard life and how he learned the answers. The story is about what motivates him to do everything he does.
The direction on this is fast, frenetic, and colorful, but avoids the usual pitfalls of "shaky cam" and too many quick cuts. The movie's silent costar is India itself; the locations, colors, sounds, and spirit of the land pervade the movie and I have a hard time believing that the same film made in another region would reverberate as well.
The Wrestler, on the other hand, is about a broken down man who is holding onto his fame twenty years after his heyday. His body is failing him, his mind is going, but he cannot give up the adoration of the fans or the rush he gets when they cheer him on or chant his name. He has deluded himself into thinking he has a relationship with an aging stripper, he wants to try a fresh start with his estranged daughter, and prove that he matters. After a heart attack, he finds the shock of the "real world" too much and he would rather risk his life by going back to the ring to hear the fans shout his name than be a no one with the stripper.
The documentary style shoot helps to impress upon the viewer the stark realities of this man's life. However, the exclusive one-camera style sometimes made me a little nauseated when the camera would swing 180 from one person to the other and back. I especially liked the fact that they didn't have great exposition into why these people are the way they are; too many films explain every character trait and nuance away, and leave nothing to the imagination of the viewer. In this film, you don't know the back story of the stripper, you don't know what happened to cause Randy to leave his daughter and become estranged. You just pick it up in the middle, learn what you can, and move on.
Mickey Rourke is fabulous in it. I'm not a big fan, thinking he peaked about 9 1/2 Weeks and has been going downhill since. But this role was practically written for him and it is great that he went into it full bore and balls out. I think this would have been a great choice for the Academy Award for best male performance and would have been an awesome counterpoint to Heath Ledger's supporting Oscar; one role (The Ram) allowed the actor (Rourke) to take so much of his actual life and use it to make a role feel even more real, while the other (The Joker) allowed the actor (Ledger) to create a fictional character from whole cloth and make it so totally real and frightening. Each shows the opposite end of the acting spectrum but both were extraordinary performances that deserved awards.
I agree with those who thought Bruce Springsteen's end credits song should have been nominated for an Academy Award. It was a powerful, stripped down, bare bones song that fit perfectly with the movie. I'm not saying it was better than the three songs nominated (or the Slumdog song that won), but it was certainly a worthy effort for nomination. It actually would have been a stark contrast to the upbeat, driving force of the songs from Slumdog, and would have given Academy voters something different to consider.
All in all, two great movies that deserved the accolades they received.
February 28, 2009
Comic Book Movies
As all my friends and family know, I'm a huge comic book/super hero fan. I love super heroes. I've been playing City of Heroes for nearly 5 years now (57 months and counting), I read comics, and am passionate about them. I love comic book movies, even the bad ones, because it brings one of my passions to another medium I love-- movies. I have blogged at great length and with great frequency about various aspects of comic books and super heroes.
With those caveats out of the way, I have a startling thing to say: I wish there were fewer comic book movies on the way.
I'll let you catch your breath.
Yes, that's right-- I'd like to see fewer super hero movies on film slates in the coming years. And here's why-- too many properties are either not handled right (i.e., Catwoman, Elektra, first Hulk, etc.), many are produced just to jump on a bandwagon (i.e., Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, et al), and too few are handled in a serious manner that is both faithful to the source and excitingly new (i.e., current Batman movies, Iron Man, Spider-man 1&2, etc).
At this point, producers and directors have a blueprint for what works and what doesn't. However, you still have crap being made and people going so far from the source material that fans wonder why the filmmakers bothered. Both The Dark Knight and Iron Man show what can happen when you treat the source fairly, have excited people trying to make a good "movie" as opposed to simply a faithful "comic book/super hero movie," and get good talent on both sides of the camera to usher the movie to completion.
Also, the fans primarily want the big, recognizable names up on film. They want to see some of the seminal classics of the genre filmed, or something entirely new. Fans want to see Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash. They don't necessarily want to see Aquaman, Green Arrow (unless it is a film of Longbow Hunter), Red Tornado, or Apache Chief. Fans want to see Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Wolverine, Spider-Man. They don't really want to see the lesser names like Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, and others.
Fans are finicky, too. Watchmen, for example, I expect to have a lot of wildly excited reviews and a lot of absolutely hate-filled reviews and very little in between. Fans of the source will be disappointed that this part or that part didn't make it into the film, while others will know that you have to cut a lot out and gloss over a lot to make a 12-issue maxi-series fit into a 2 hour film.
You have filmmakers hiring the exact right people to do a film (Joss Whedon doing Wonder Woman, for example) and then absolutely hamstringing what he is allowed to do with the property to the point where he has to leave due to "creative differences." You have film studios saying "The Dark Knight was successful, and it was dark, so all of our upcoming super hero films have to be dark" rather than acknowledging that Batman is a darker property and was done "right," and similarly the other properties should be done "right" -- whatever right is for that property (Superman, hope and light. Captain Marvel, innocence and wonder. Etc.).
Lastly, the proliferation of super hero movies means that the audience gets bored. It's like with the Western; there are only so many tales to tell using that genre, so it has always waxed and waned. It was big in the past, then died away. It came back with a surge in the late 80s and 90s, then died out again. You don't hear about too many westerns on the slate right now. Comic books have ridden high for a while now, and there is going to be a backlash. I'd rather the movie producers realize this, only produce the big ones (and fully commit to them), and put the smaller titles on the back burner for some other time.
I look at the upcoming slate of super hero movies and I, as a fan of this genre and of the source material, am not overly excited about them. I wonder what a non-fan is thinking about having all these films with properties and names they don't even recognize coming out?
Enough is enough. Scale back. Make what you make good, first and foremost, and don't burn out your audience with crap.
With those caveats out of the way, I have a startling thing to say: I wish there were fewer comic book movies on the way.
I'll let you catch your breath.
Yes, that's right-- I'd like to see fewer super hero movies on film slates in the coming years. And here's why-- too many properties are either not handled right (i.e., Catwoman, Elektra, first Hulk, etc.), many are produced just to jump on a bandwagon (i.e., Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, et al), and too few are handled in a serious manner that is both faithful to the source and excitingly new (i.e., current Batman movies, Iron Man, Spider-man 1&2, etc).
At this point, producers and directors have a blueprint for what works and what doesn't. However, you still have crap being made and people going so far from the source material that fans wonder why the filmmakers bothered. Both The Dark Knight and Iron Man show what can happen when you treat the source fairly, have excited people trying to make a good "movie" as opposed to simply a faithful "comic book/super hero movie," and get good talent on both sides of the camera to usher the movie to completion.
Also, the fans primarily want the big, recognizable names up on film. They want to see some of the seminal classics of the genre filmed, or something entirely new. Fans want to see Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash. They don't necessarily want to see Aquaman, Green Arrow (unless it is a film of Longbow Hunter), Red Tornado, or Apache Chief. Fans want to see Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Wolverine, Spider-Man. They don't really want to see the lesser names like Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, and others.
Fans are finicky, too. Watchmen, for example, I expect to have a lot of wildly excited reviews and a lot of absolutely hate-filled reviews and very little in between. Fans of the source will be disappointed that this part or that part didn't make it into the film, while others will know that you have to cut a lot out and gloss over a lot to make a 12-issue maxi-series fit into a 2 hour film.
You have filmmakers hiring the exact right people to do a film (Joss Whedon doing Wonder Woman, for example) and then absolutely hamstringing what he is allowed to do with the property to the point where he has to leave due to "creative differences." You have film studios saying "The Dark Knight was successful, and it was dark, so all of our upcoming super hero films have to be dark" rather than acknowledging that Batman is a darker property and was done "right," and similarly the other properties should be done "right" -- whatever right is for that property (Superman, hope and light. Captain Marvel, innocence and wonder. Etc.).
Lastly, the proliferation of super hero movies means that the audience gets bored. It's like with the Western; there are only so many tales to tell using that genre, so it has always waxed and waned. It was big in the past, then died away. It came back with a surge in the late 80s and 90s, then died out again. You don't hear about too many westerns on the slate right now. Comic books have ridden high for a while now, and there is going to be a backlash. I'd rather the movie producers realize this, only produce the big ones (and fully commit to them), and put the smaller titles on the back burner for some other time.
I look at the upcoming slate of super hero movies and I, as a fan of this genre and of the source material, am not overly excited about them. I wonder what a non-fan is thinking about having all these films with properties and names they don't even recognize coming out?
Enough is enough. Scale back. Make what you make good, first and foremost, and don't burn out your audience with crap.
February 27, 2009
Recession, What Recession?
The NFL head office released about 200 staff and the Commissioner and others at the top all took a 25% decrease. They fixed their salaries for this year at last year's rates, too. The NBA, NHL, and MLB all are axing jobs, salaries, and scrambling around, as the poor economy hits the main revenue streams for the sports-- those who advertise with them. The NFL even voted to keep ticket prices at 2008 levels (which any fan can tell you is way over what the average American can or wants to spend in the first place, but it is a start).
But I'm reading about Albert Haynesworth getting a $100 million contract from the Redskins in the NFL. I'm reading how Manny Ramirez, a 37 year old player, is rejecting a $25 million one-year deal and a $25+20 million two-year deal.
If the respective clubs can afford to offer one player on their roster this much money, how can we be in a recession? Or, why not keep that $25 million and save approximately 625 jobs in the MLB instead? Or 2,500 jobs in the NFL with the $100 million (I can't find a consensus average American income figure, but most I find are between $35k and $45k, so I'll use a median number of $40k/year).
The NBA is gearing up for 2010 and beyond, as it may wind up running without a collective bargaining agreement. Currently, the NBA players command 60% of the revenue that the NBA brings in, and it is likely they will ask for more.
Average Salaries
NBA, 2007-2008 - $5.3 million
NFL, 2007 - $770,000 (of course, top-tier players are much higher, the lower tier players balance this out)
NHL, 2007-2008 - $1.9 million
MLB, 2008 - $3.15 million
At the low end, the average salary of an NFL player per year is the equivalent of 19 average Americans' salary (assuming, again, the $40k/yearly income). The other main sports leagues pay their players progressively more. NBA players have absolutely no room to complain about the wages they receive.
It is hard to care when the players complain of being "disrespected" or needing to "feed their families." Not with a recession on and the rest of us truly having to make do with less.
But I'm reading about Albert Haynesworth getting a $100 million contract from the Redskins in the NFL. I'm reading how Manny Ramirez, a 37 year old player, is rejecting a $25 million one-year deal and a $25+20 million two-year deal.
If the respective clubs can afford to offer one player on their roster this much money, how can we be in a recession? Or, why not keep that $25 million and save approximately 625 jobs in the MLB instead? Or 2,500 jobs in the NFL with the $100 million (I can't find a consensus average American income figure, but most I find are between $35k and $45k, so I'll use a median number of $40k/year).
The NBA is gearing up for 2010 and beyond, as it may wind up running without a collective bargaining agreement. Currently, the NBA players command 60% of the revenue that the NBA brings in, and it is likely they will ask for more.
Average Salaries
NBA, 2007-2008 - $5.3 million
NFL, 2007 - $770,000 (of course, top-tier players are much higher, the lower tier players balance this out)
NHL, 2007-2008 - $1.9 million
MLB, 2008 - $3.15 million
At the low end, the average salary of an NFL player per year is the equivalent of 19 average Americans' salary (assuming, again, the $40k/yearly income). The other main sports leagues pay their players progressively more. NBA players have absolutely no room to complain about the wages they receive.
It is hard to care when the players complain of being "disrespected" or needing to "feed their families." Not with a recession on and the rest of us truly having to make do with less.
February 24, 2009
Mini or Series?
My wife and I have discussed this a few times recently. It seems like a lot of TV shows and ideas suffer from being continuing series. We lament the loss of the '80s style mini-series.
Take Heroes, for example. Tim Kring had an awesome and inspired idea for a show. He crafted it and honed it over years and finally was able to sell it to a network with the huge super-heroes tide. And season one was just that: awesome. It had a great villain, it had a great cast, and the storyline had a strong beginning, middle, and end. It was like seeing a favorite comic book literally come alive week to week.
But the problem was, it had a season two. And now a chapter three and four (season three). None of these new chapters/seasons has come close to living up to the first, because Tim Kring didn't have years to write a good plot, story, work out the problems, and then shop it.
If the networks weren't so greedy and stupid, they would have done season one as a maxi-series and then told Tim that they wanted first crack at the next one, should he develop it. And Tim should have then gone off and worked on it as he did the first and get it right.
Lost is another example. How many "crappy" seasons have fans had to go through after the first season? You read blogs and boards dedicated to the show and, while there have been bright spots and resurgences, the show has never been as good as in the first season.
It could be argued that 24 suffers the same way. Season one was so good (well, minus the incredibly crappy female characters who were written to be dumber than doors), and nearly every season has suffered in comparison. Some have edged up the ratings and kept it going, while others have been lamented by its fans as racist, biased, claptrap.
Desperate Housewives could be included. The first season was campy and funny and did well. But then subsequent seasons have struggled and gone in different directions and been much less successful. They had to resort to rebooting the entire seasons "5 years later" (or however long it is) and basically go back and do the same stories from season one again in order to gain back viewers and regain their ratings.
Another example that shows this effect clearly is the recent attempt at reviving Knight Rider. The two-hour premiere movie that aired wasn't too bad; it had most of the elements from the TV show we liked, the new car was interesting, and it did well in the ratings. But, when they turned it into a regular series, they ignored the original show's working premise, they ignored what worked in the premiere, and they went off in a different direction. And it tanked hard and fast. They tried to fix it by going back to that original premise, but by then it was too late-- they had killed their promising new show. Bionic Woman did nearly the same thing.
One reason that the cable networks have been so successful at drawing audiences away from the networks is because of a) when the shows run and b) how long they run. Most cable shows have 7-11 shows in a season, go on hiatus for longer periods of time (often only running over the summer, so they have the longest hiatus in which to write really good episodes). They take the time, generally, to write a complete storyline for the season and have the time to edit it and knock it around and get it right. Another thing they do is try not to compete too directly with other cable networks; in that way, they don't loose audience to those that like both shows and won't switch if the two shows are on concurrently.
Now, imagine if the shows above had been conceived as mini-series or maxi-series. Imagine if the networks had just shown the one season as a special event and then allowed the creators to work on it for a year before coming back with a new special event. Imagine if, instead of having 22 weeks interrupted regularly by sporting events and things like the awards shows, we got 52 weeks of new programming? Imagine having new material of your favorite shows less often, but with higher quality, and with other shows to try and hopefully like while that first show is off? Imagine if the networks got wise to the fact that the 60s-80s way of doing things no longer applied and actually tried hard to give the audiences what they wanted, rather than shooting themselves in the foot on a seasonal and, these days, weekly, basis.
I can dream, can't I?
Take Heroes, for example. Tim Kring had an awesome and inspired idea for a show. He crafted it and honed it over years and finally was able to sell it to a network with the huge super-heroes tide. And season one was just that: awesome. It had a great villain, it had a great cast, and the storyline had a strong beginning, middle, and end. It was like seeing a favorite comic book literally come alive week to week.
But the problem was, it had a season two. And now a chapter three and four (season three). None of these new chapters/seasons has come close to living up to the first, because Tim Kring didn't have years to write a good plot, story, work out the problems, and then shop it.
If the networks weren't so greedy and stupid, they would have done season one as a maxi-series and then told Tim that they wanted first crack at the next one, should he develop it. And Tim should have then gone off and worked on it as he did the first and get it right.
Lost is another example. How many "crappy" seasons have fans had to go through after the first season? You read blogs and boards dedicated to the show and, while there have been bright spots and resurgences, the show has never been as good as in the first season.
It could be argued that 24 suffers the same way. Season one was so good (well, minus the incredibly crappy female characters who were written to be dumber than doors), and nearly every season has suffered in comparison. Some have edged up the ratings and kept it going, while others have been lamented by its fans as racist, biased, claptrap.
Desperate Housewives could be included. The first season was campy and funny and did well. But then subsequent seasons have struggled and gone in different directions and been much less successful. They had to resort to rebooting the entire seasons "5 years later" (or however long it is) and basically go back and do the same stories from season one again in order to gain back viewers and regain their ratings.
Another example that shows this effect clearly is the recent attempt at reviving Knight Rider. The two-hour premiere movie that aired wasn't too bad; it had most of the elements from the TV show we liked, the new car was interesting, and it did well in the ratings. But, when they turned it into a regular series, they ignored the original show's working premise, they ignored what worked in the premiere, and they went off in a different direction. And it tanked hard and fast. They tried to fix it by going back to that original premise, but by then it was too late-- they had killed their promising new show. Bionic Woman did nearly the same thing.
One reason that the cable networks have been so successful at drawing audiences away from the networks is because of a) when the shows run and b) how long they run. Most cable shows have 7-11 shows in a season, go on hiatus for longer periods of time (often only running over the summer, so they have the longest hiatus in which to write really good episodes). They take the time, generally, to write a complete storyline for the season and have the time to edit it and knock it around and get it right. Another thing they do is try not to compete too directly with other cable networks; in that way, they don't loose audience to those that like both shows and won't switch if the two shows are on concurrently.
Now, imagine if the shows above had been conceived as mini-series or maxi-series. Imagine if the networks had just shown the one season as a special event and then allowed the creators to work on it for a year before coming back with a new special event. Imagine if, instead of having 22 weeks interrupted regularly by sporting events and things like the awards shows, we got 52 weeks of new programming? Imagine having new material of your favorite shows less often, but with higher quality, and with other shows to try and hopefully like while that first show is off? Imagine if the networks got wise to the fact that the 60s-80s way of doing things no longer applied and actually tried hard to give the audiences what they wanted, rather than shooting themselves in the foot on a seasonal and, these days, weekly, basis.
I can dream, can't I?
February 23, 2009
Snow Pics
We have a winter storm here. It arrived about the same time as the Oscars last night and continued to dump superfluous snow on us long after the Oscars stopped doing the same.
Here's the mound-o-snow that is on our deck. I have actually hit the right side of this mound twice in an attempt to minimize the weight and area of snow. You can't tell I've done anything.
This is out the front door. I've highlighted the top of a three-foot tall driveway marker. It is the only one of the many driveway markers that can be seen. Now, I'm not implying we have had three feet dropped; just that we've had enough snow drop and drift and not melt that we are to the point of having a solid three foot base available for skiing. also note that the snow is right up to the top of the stairs on our front porch. Anyone who has been here knows how tall that is.
Note: The snow is still falling. We've got around 35 cm (not quite 14 inches) so far.
Here's the mound-o-snow that is on our deck. I have actually hit the right side of this mound twice in an attempt to minimize the weight and area of snow. You can't tell I've done anything.
This is out the front door. I've highlighted the top of a three-foot tall driveway marker. It is the only one of the many driveway markers that can be seen. Now, I'm not implying we have had three feet dropped; just that we've had enough snow drop and drift and not melt that we are to the point of having a solid three foot base available for skiing. also note that the snow is right up to the top of the stairs on our front porch. Anyone who has been here knows how tall that is.
Note: The snow is still falling. We've got around 35 cm (not quite 14 inches) so far.
February 22, 2009
Er... What?
A cartoonist recently drew a political cartoon making reference to two high-profile news items, the escape and rampage of a chimpanzee from a zoo and the fact that the stimulus plan was poorly written. The cartoon showed two policemen (or game wardens) shooting a chimpanzee and one of them saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
My first thought when seeing this cartoon had a couple of components:
1. Good tie together of recent news.
2. Funny reference to the fact that many politicians act like monkeys.
3. Slight reference to the old adage that if you put a million monkeys in a room with a million typewriters, sooner or later one of them will write Shakespeare.
However, someone, somewhere, decided this was a racially pointed attack on President Obama. Someone decided that the cartoonist was referencing the fact that blacks were often compared to monkeys and apes by those who wanted the continued segregation of the races. Someone decided that the cartoonist was using imagery from early film and TV (especially black and white cartoons) where blacks were often portrayed looking very chimp-like.
Now, of course, many blacks (and quite a few whites) have jumped on this bandwagon. Having been shown something that they did not see at first, and apparently strongly persuaded to agree with that position, the NAACP, among other groups and a strong minority of voices, are calling for the termination of employment of the cartoonist. the NY Post has issued an apology after initially defending the cartoon and the cartoonist.
I find it reprehensible that people can take this so out of context, be so uneducated as to not get the references, turn this into something racial when that was not the intent, and, finally, push a newspaper around to the point where it apologizes.
This reminds me a lot of the supposed "gaffe" that President Obama made during the campaign trailer when he used an extremely common phrase, "put lipstick on a pig," to mean even if you dress up something it remains what it is at its core. A phrase that was shown to have been used by McCain just a few weeks prior, and yet did not promote outrage.
Here we have a case of a vocal minority of people being offended by something that they simply misunderstood. However, because this minority of people misunderstood it and decided it was racist, it has become national news. And, frankly, whenever Rev. Al Sharpton gets involved, doesn't that show how stupid it is? When was the last time he was relevant? He only makes the news if he shouts "Racism!" so that is what he does-- regardless of the content, meaning, or implications. All he has in his toolbox is the hammer named "racism," so the only solution he sees are nails named "the man," "whitey," and "oppression." He and those who follow him have done more harm to race relations in this country in the past 30 years than any other group or person.
My hope is that someone in the black community, preferably President Obama, will come out and say something on this cartoon that shows that he/she understood the intent, didn't find it racist at all, and tells this vocal minority to shut up and go home. Political cartoons are supposed to invoke thought, and even controversy. However, in this case, the controversy was about the chimpanzees who work in government, regardless of race, who can't understand what it will take to improve the economic situation in America (and the world). It was not motivated by racism and those who say it was must have their own agenda for saying so.
My first thought when seeing this cartoon had a couple of components:
1. Good tie together of recent news.
2. Funny reference to the fact that many politicians act like monkeys.
3. Slight reference to the old adage that if you put a million monkeys in a room with a million typewriters, sooner or later one of them will write Shakespeare.
However, someone, somewhere, decided this was a racially pointed attack on President Obama. Someone decided that the cartoonist was referencing the fact that blacks were often compared to monkeys and apes by those who wanted the continued segregation of the races. Someone decided that the cartoonist was using imagery from early film and TV (especially black and white cartoons) where blacks were often portrayed looking very chimp-like.
Now, of course, many blacks (and quite a few whites) have jumped on this bandwagon. Having been shown something that they did not see at first, and apparently strongly persuaded to agree with that position, the NAACP, among other groups and a strong minority of voices, are calling for the termination of employment of the cartoonist. the NY Post has issued an apology after initially defending the cartoon and the cartoonist.
I find it reprehensible that people can take this so out of context, be so uneducated as to not get the references, turn this into something racial when that was not the intent, and, finally, push a newspaper around to the point where it apologizes.
This reminds me a lot of the supposed "gaffe" that President Obama made during the campaign trailer when he used an extremely common phrase, "put lipstick on a pig," to mean even if you dress up something it remains what it is at its core. A phrase that was shown to have been used by McCain just a few weeks prior, and yet did not promote outrage.
Here we have a case of a vocal minority of people being offended by something that they simply misunderstood. However, because this minority of people misunderstood it and decided it was racist, it has become national news. And, frankly, whenever Rev. Al Sharpton gets involved, doesn't that show how stupid it is? When was the last time he was relevant? He only makes the news if he shouts "Racism!" so that is what he does-- regardless of the content, meaning, or implications. All he has in his toolbox is the hammer named "racism," so the only solution he sees are nails named "the man," "whitey," and "oppression." He and those who follow him have done more harm to race relations in this country in the past 30 years than any other group or person.
My hope is that someone in the black community, preferably President Obama, will come out and say something on this cartoon that shows that he/she understood the intent, didn't find it racist at all, and tells this vocal minority to shut up and go home. Political cartoons are supposed to invoke thought, and even controversy. However, in this case, the controversy was about the chimpanzees who work in government, regardless of race, who can't understand what it will take to improve the economic situation in America (and the world). It was not motivated by racism and those who say it was must have their own agenda for saying so.
February 18, 2009
Too Trusting
It's a good thing I try hard not to be Evil. Since moving to Canada I have seen a variety of ways in which Canada does things that just wouldn't fly where I'm from.
For example, my doctor called in a prescription to the Meditrust down the road. Jennifer from the pharmacy called to confirm some things, as I was not in their system yet. When she got to the "Do you have prescription insurance" I answered affirmatively and she responded with, "Is it under Melissa's name?" and I again said yes.
When I just now stopped by the pharmacy to pick up the meds, the woman ringing me out did not even ask to confirm who I was with a photo ID or the pharmacy insurance card.
Now, let's say I was Melissa's ex-husband and we had a very bitter divorce. I would now be getting drugs on her account at a great reduction of cost.
While I agree with my Canadian friends and family that Canada is a nicer place to live in regards to how people generally treat one another, I think there is nice and then doing things that could hurt your business. The pharmacy really SHOULD check a photo ID and/or ask for the pharmacy card before selling a person medications. Yes, it slows down the check out process slightly, but they lower their chances of being sued, being ripped off, and over medicating someone who is playing the system. Just makes good business sense, to me.
For example, my doctor called in a prescription to the Meditrust down the road. Jennifer from the pharmacy called to confirm some things, as I was not in their system yet. When she got to the "Do you have prescription insurance" I answered affirmatively and she responded with, "Is it under Melissa's name?" and I again said yes.
When I just now stopped by the pharmacy to pick up the meds, the woman ringing me out did not even ask to confirm who I was with a photo ID or the pharmacy insurance card.
Now, let's say I was Melissa's ex-husband and we had a very bitter divorce. I would now be getting drugs on her account at a great reduction of cost.
While I agree with my Canadian friends and family that Canada is a nicer place to live in regards to how people generally treat one another, I think there is nice and then doing things that could hurt your business. The pharmacy really SHOULD check a photo ID and/or ask for the pharmacy card before selling a person medications. Yes, it slows down the check out process slightly, but they lower their chances of being sued, being ripped off, and over medicating someone who is playing the system. Just makes good business sense, to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)