bulletproofheeb

This season is shaping up to be a mess.  First of all, Sylar/Nathan kissed Mrs. Patrelli on the cheek so she should be completely aware of his fake identity.  Then we find out that Matt's invisible Sylar has one goal: to be anoying.  Really.  That's his official goal.  And now we're following a synesthete?  That's not a crazy mutation, it's a perfectly accepted neurological disorder.  What don't we toss in an insomniac who's power is that he doesn't sleep a lot.  Or maybe a hemophile who had the ability to bleed a lot.  What the fuck?

 

 

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

What are your thoughts?  Think this season is an improvement, on par as past seasons or worse?  And what bothers you most about the Heroes universe?

After a bit of a rocky end to last season LOLHeroes is back.  I tried to stay away.  I really did.  However, the demand for somethinggood to come out of what was NBCs flagship was too great so I returned to my torrents, keyboard and image editing program.  What follows is all I could salvage of the premier of season 4.  The episode wasn't terrible but it was certainly not good.  It feels like the writers are simple rebooting season 1 all over again.  Peter is back in his medical field, Sylar is getting a new set of parental issues, Claire is trying to balance school and abilities... the list goes on.  But this time there's a creepy carnival.

 

I will not be happy unless there is a truly evil clown.

 

And now

 

We've had this plot before.  They ran with it for a whole 2 episodes before they killed off DL.  Want to take bets on how long Peter sticks with it?

Oh god! He's inside my lungs!

Speaking of... what happened to Molly and Mohinder?  Oh, and Micah and everyone else from down south?  Remember that chick who learned from TV as well as her grandmother Uhura?  They all used to be regulars.

She and her emo friend had a perfectly goofy and servicable plan to see if it was a suicide.  What does Claire do?  Jumps out the window.  Not only will this out you in your new school but you'll get new blood all over the chalk outline.  And how long do they leave that outline on the ground, anyway?

What can I say about Blasphemy day that wouldn't simply be me adding to the noise about it? I could repeat all of the clever things I've read about it, such as blasphemy is the only true victimless crime. Still, that's just regurgitating what's already out there.

 

So here's the truth: I angry at religious people. All the time. It's silly to be angry at religion itself. A religion is simply a set of rules. No matter how hateful, sexist and abusive those rules are, if no one plays by them then there's no problem. And all organized religions have employed practices of sexism, abuse and hate, form Judaism to Buddhism to whatever other religion you can think of. But it's not religion I hate. What's really important to remember is that it had a purpose at one time. Back when were were barely civilized (relative to today, not stating that we are truly civilized now) we needed religion. Why? Because of the fear and terror that it instilled in humans. When there was very little communication and transportation was slow what reason was there to not kill the next goat herder, take his clothing and flock and move on. It could be months before anyone knew the victim might be missing and most likely no one would ever know who's path he had crossed. People had less to work with and live on. People had more to fear from nature. That fear was the only thing that could keep a community in line. And that hate, or at least distrust, of the other was all that could keep a community together. You combine superstition with hate and community and that's a very simple recipe for religion.

As the years went on people needed more from it. Religion had to offer deeper truths than just a legal system to abide by. So mythology began to mesh with philosophy to become a more modern version of religion. The problem is that religion already has to have answers. What good is a system of universal truths if some of it isn't true? So religion starts with answers and and then works those answers into the observable world. It's the equivalent of trying to write the answers to a calculus book before calculus has been invented. In short; it's a poor choice.

And we've come so far since then. We've learned about thepoor  world and our brains. We don't need the idea of an invisible friend sitting in the sky, watching our mistakes, in order to not be cruel to each other. But those answers that were written before we were smart enough to ask the right questions still apply to most of the population. That fear and hate is still tethering people to their ethics. What terrifies me are the really religious people who are afraid of atheists. They rant about how people can't be moral creatures without the fear of god. What that tells me is that they can't be moral creatures without their fear of god. That were they to realize there's no reason for them to be a theist then they'd feel OK killing and stealing.

Does this apply to all religious people? Yes, but not to the extent of murder. I've seen religion tie some of the kindest people I know to horrible rules of behavior. One of the people I used to trust with advice and knowledge actually encouraged me to find someone else to marry because my fiance was not of the same religion. I've seen people who believe in equality for all people no matter their sexual orientation turn their backs on gay marriage because they thought their bible told them to. Hell, Christianity's strongest ties to Judaism are based on a handful of mistranslations and passages taken out of context by apologetic cultists trying to gain political power.

Today the only thing religion is good for is making your decisions for you. Bibles don't take the last few thousand years into account so the choices are probably not going to be the soundest choices. So what's the alternative? Well, I'm going to side with the tools we've been building up for millennia: amazing communication and an incredible understanding of the world around us as well as within. Beyond that, for when we come to unmapped regions of knowledge? We have logic and the scientific method. Yes, it's slow but the universe isn't going anywhere. It's more work to actually think and be rational but a deeper understanding of the natural world lets people see that this universe is so much more complex and impressive than if it had been tossed together over a week by someone who was bored and lonely. Reality is majestic enough without throwing a blanket of magic, fear and lies over it.

How does all of this relate to Blasphemy Day? The whole point of Blasphemy Day is to protest (specifically regarding the UN) rules both legal and social that make it taboo to criticize religions. Defamation of character is an attack on a person but defamation of religion is a defense of reason, which is what the modern world is built on. Blasphemy Day is supposed to show those who live by faith that talking about religion in all of its glory and gory details won't destroy creation. The proper response to criticism isn't anger and violence. It's to think about it and then respond in kind. Blasphemy isn't a crime. It's an invitation to discussion. Once a topic is declared off limits to criticism then it's off limits to growth and instantly becomes irrelevant. Every single idea in science is open to scrutiny under the scientific method. If it doesn't hold up continuously then it's torn down and built up or tossed out. Nothing in science is sacred and untouchable. Why is religion different than any other set of ideas? Fundamentalists keep complaining that they want equal regard in society, schools and the government. That means opening up to analysis, observation and criticism. When they hear blasphemy that's only because it's the answer you've already chosen for whatever question is asked. But what it really is is an invitation to the equal treatment they've been demanding.

I could just put out a string of insults that are factually true but phrased to create ire:

• The main reason you're the religion you are is because of where you are born
• Pascal's Wager applies just as much to Zeus and Satan as it does to Jesus and God
• If you believe that Jews and Christians have the same god then you haven't read either bible
• The Jewish bible, Christian bible and Koran all have many authors and editors. There is no direct line of truth from any of those writers to the version you have read
• Even Buddhists have committed acts of violence in the name of their faith

I'm not going to end with those, however. The most blasphemous and useful thing I can close with is this:

I have no faith in god. I have no faith in people. But in regard to people I do have hope.

Blasphemous, I know. Oh, and maybe one quote for the road.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

So Glee had its second/third premier or second episode of actual premier or whatever Fox is calling it. The first episode aired months ago and has been on TV again and on the internet all summer long. The show started up the actual season last night. And I’m still not impressed. Judging by the reaction of the internet I’m part of a select few. I know only of two others who are as not won over as I am.

 

 

But this is not without reason. There are many things about the show that I can specifically point to and say “This is what is bothering me”. So I’m going to go ahead and share those points. If there are any Glee fans reading this perhaps you can address some of my grievances.

 

• I’ll start with something small but important. The film is obviously filmed in widescreen. It is obviously cropped for standard broadcast. I know this because during episode two there were multiple times when the speaking character did not appear on screen, or appeared with only a partial face. There are other shows filmed in widescreen now that are also shown in that format for their standard definition broadcasts. Why this horrible chop job on Glee? I don’t even think it’s Pan And Scan. It appears that Fox simply framed the centre of the image and cut out the rest. So when someone is speaking and it appears that they aren’t even in the room it really makes watching a show difficult.
• While we’re on the subject of editing let’s talk about the sound. The dubbing and post-processing during the songs is so bad that it destroys the performances. How a show about singing can have the worst sound editing on television in recent history is beyond me. I understand that the songs are not going to be performed live. However, they don’t sound live. They sound like the person singing is:
  •  
    • standing still. The performances are usually done while the characters are performing choreography so that makes the bad lip syncing all the more noticeable.
    • in a recording studio. These kids are singing in auditoriums and small rehearsal rooms. There should be some sort of interaction between the acoustics of the room and their voices.
    • mastered for an album. And not a live album. It has the quality of a highly polish, over produced studio album. I get that they’re trying to push the iTunes downloads but this is ridiculous.
• There are no dynamic characters on the show. They are all flat caricatures at best. Some of the regulars don’t actually get any lines or acting at all. Want to take a look? Sure. And I’ll call them by their roles as I don’t remember a single character name.
  •  
    • Principal – money-obsessed administrator
    • Cheerleading coach – Bitch. That’s really all there is to her. Her main goal in life, above that of coaching, seems to be to end the glee club. Why? Because they are taking away money from that pays for her cartoonish obsessions with details regarding the cheerleading team such as international dry-cleaning. I don’t get her as the villain of the story.
    • Everyone in Glee Club
      • Big black diva
      • Type A obnoxious (aka Mini-Menzel)
      • The Jock
      • The homo – This is not a pejorative. His main trait is that he’s gay. The only other things you can tell about his character is how he looks. As a person… he’s just gay.
      • Asian girl
      • Wheelchair guy If there’s anything else we’re supposed to know about these kids it sure is not being conveyed through actual writing.
    • Cute OCD teacher – Who is also annoyingly weak in regard to her one relationship which consists of doting on main character.
    • Bitchy wife – The main character’s wife. She seems obsessed with money (then why marry a teacher?). She is obsessed with getting a large house. She often times forgets that she’s married and appears to believe she has a live in man-servant. There is nothing redeeming about her and I don’t understand how a shrew like that manages to keep someone in a relationship unless he’s
      •  
        • A) being blackmailed
        • B) completely whipped
    • Main character – He seems to be completely whipped. He takes abuse from his wife, from students, from other teachers. His strongest moment came in episode two when he politely left after cheerleading coach finished her bitching monologue.
• The main character sucks. I assume he’s supposed to be the sympathetic character viewers identify with and follow through his journey. I don’t feel particularly sympathetic to him. The problem is he’s too pathetic. In regards to his wife he has three viable options in regard to his wife: murder, divorce, suicide. I know it’s a poorly written character when even if she was pregnant the most sympathetic choice would still be to leave her. And it’s been set up ever so obviously since the pilot that main character is supposed to leave bitchy wife for cute OCD teacher so why should I bother becoming invested in his current marriage at all?

So really that’s the entire show so far. I know it’s only two episodes in and I’m going to give it a few more tries (if only because the other people I hang out with on Wednesday nights want to) but so far I’m not impressed. The characters are all crap, the performances are good but that just means I’m interested in the soundtrack and not the show, the gay jokes are wearing thin already and the clever one-liners are not enough to keep me hooked.

Many things can be said about Tim Burton. He has a great eye for fictional geography, he loves the style of old German silent films and, unlike the oft attributed Zach Snyder, he fits the definition of “visionary”. But one thing that cannot be said of Tim Burton is that he’s a fast learner.

 

Let me go back a little bit. The some days ago the trailer for his new movie, Alice in Wonderland, was released and a few thoughts went through my head. The first was that the lead actress (Mia Wasikowska) is made up a bit like Helena Bonham Carter, with her hair a bit like a bird-nest(watch out Helena, he might trade up again like on the set of Planet of the Apes). Second, I was put off by the fact that Depp as the Mad Hatter looks like a steampunk Willy Wonka. Finally, I wondered when Tim Burton would learn not to direct other people’s material.

 

That is the lesson I wish he would learn because it is getting a bit pain for the people who have to watch him slowly stumble towards this inevitable conclusion, one movie at a time. I like Tim Burton, don’t get me wrong. However, I am not completely enamored with him and his style. He makes a good deal of mistakes. These range from casting to project choices. Some of his movies age incredibly well (Beetlejuice) and some not so much (Batman). One of the few consistent facts about his career is that when he directs his own material it tends to be much better than when he takes on someone else’s work.

 

Let's take a look:

Adaptations	Any good?
Pee-wee’s Big Adventure	Good
Batman	Good, but flawed
Batman Returns	Very flawed
Sleepy Hollow*	OK, great design
Planet of the Apes	Shit
Big Fish	Fair (averaging between the fact that I find it terrible and others find it sappy but watchable)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory	Crap
Sweeney Todd	Good, though the strong points are the costumes and the actors’ performances (minus HBC’s singing), not the direction

* Technically, these are based on existing stories but are so far removed from the original stories that they could be put into a 3rd category.

**No, he didn’t direct Nightmare Before Christmas

 

Even if you disagree with some of my mini-judgments there’s still an overwhelming pattern to this list. His best works is all his own and his worst tend to be adaptations. Why is this? Most likely because he has such a strong vision of his movies that it doesn’t matter what the content is; it must fit into his style.  This works perfectly fine if the material is his to begin with. But when it’s a story that already exists he sometimes has to do a number on it in order to force it into the box that is his style.

 

And now we get his version of Alice in Wonderland. Granted, it’s neither Alice in Wonderland nor Through the Looking Glass but rather a bastard sequel set years after the second visit. However, they are still someone else’s characters and someone else’s world. This all makes me worried about the project. Will it look great? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be a good movie. And with his past performances I don’t know if I trust him anymore. I may or may not see this one in theatres but if I do go it will be with reservation. And if it doesn’t completely blow me out of the water then Burton will become relegated to “Netflix Only” status, along with Michael Bay and other directors I wouldn’t mind seeing but would mind paying for, because I have absolutely no interest in his next project.

 

What is it? A full length remake of a perfectly serviceable half-hour short he made decades ago: Frankenweenie

.

Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince is the first time a director (David Yates) has done more than one Harry Potter film since Chris Columbus began the franchise. The fact that there is now such a strong and consistent style to the films proves both comforting and a bit disappointing.

 

 

First off, I enjoyed this movie. Not only does Yates have a wonderful visual style (I’m a sucker for those shiny black ceramic bricks that foretell danger) but he also has a knack for getting very good performances out of young actors in this series. He nicely balances the bizarre world that Alfonso Cuaróne crafted in Prisoner of Azkaban with the high school drama ­Mike Newell brought to the franchise in Goblet of Fire. It’s also fortunate timing in the franchise as Yates seems the most adept at incorporating the larger visual effects. Since the movies are getting darker and more intense these are much more common in the last 3 books than anywhere else in the series.

 

The one thing that bothers me is, fittingly enough, the one thing he seems to borrow from Chris Columbus and that is a closer adherence to the source material. In films 1 and 2 the films are almost direct adaptations of the books, simply abridged for time. These are also the two weakest films in the franchise to date. The point of adapting something from one medium to another is to add something to the story. All Columbus did was take a bit away. It was nice to see things movie but it really wasn’t a standalone product. It was a companion to the book. Complain about tone shift and changes to detail all you want but Prisoner of Azkaban was the first attempt to make a real movie out of the books. Yes, things were cut, rearranged and changed but in the continuity of the films (which is different than the books, like it or not) it was a necessary and marvelous leap forward.

 

Now Yates has taken a half-step back, doing more of a close reading than an inspired adaptation for the story. To be fair some of this blame can be put on the editing and/or the script but Yates is the director and shoulders the responsibility. In Order of the Phoenix there are some minor adaptations but for the most part plot points are shortened and then smoothed over, not rewritten. So while the Yates movies are much closer to the original text I feel that is their greatest weakness. Overall his films feel a bit choppier and cut up than either Goblet or Prisoner. When comparing the book to the movie for Half-blood Prince I can easily see most of the changes and they aren’t shifts for pacing and continuity. For the most part they are actions and subplots being condensed for time, and once aware of it this really shows.

 

Dumbledor, for instance, is a lot more upfront with Harry from the get go about what he wants. Yes, this does make the movie move faster it also cuts out a lot of the development that happens between them in the book. I know that looks like I just complained it’s not close enough to the novel but that’s not the point at all. The point is Yates doesn’t take that Dumbledor/Harry development and move it elsewhere. He just leaves it on the cutting room floor. The same goes for a lot that happens with Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny. There’s a lot more that’s simply stated in dialogue than shown in action and because Yates shows so much craft in other aspects of the film it really feels like he rushed in the areas he changes.

 

The real loss here is that Yates proves he’s capable of pulling the emotional depth out of his actors to show these relationships rather than tell you what’s going on. Someone as ham handed as Columbus doesn’t earn that respect in his movies and even Cuaróne’s film seems much more interested in world building a universe of intensity rather than subtle crafting of high school relationships. But Yates follows on the heels of Newell in terms of how he treats the students and staff of Hogwarts. This is the only aspect where he skimps but it does lead to a choppy feel.

 

Do not misinterpret this criticism. This is a highly enjoyable movie. In terms of this franchise it’s a good one. And sticking so close to the original text will probably be a huge plus to many fans out there. But it does come at an artistic cost. The reason I’ve gone into such depth with this single complaint is that Yates is signed on for the final adaptation, both parts. So this is partially a preemptive review of the Deathly Hallows as well. It’s a double-edged sword; that the comforting fact Yates is more than up to the task of creating appealing and deserving films is paired with the disappointing realization that this will come at the cost of many small character driven moments and subplots.

 

On a scale of -5 to +5 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince gets a +3

 

PS Does anyone else find it a little odd that other than the counter still being in the great hall “house points” have all but vanished from the movies?

NOTE: Credit where credit is due. This is actually co-written with my wife. We totally geeked out and this was born. Return of the Jedi has been on twice today and it raises a shitload of questions about continuity. Actually, it doesn't raise them. It brings up inconsistencies between the original trilogy (the real Star Wars movies) and episodes 1,2 and 3 (glorified, and sloppily written fan-fic). The one point that we'll be focusing on is Leia and her actual lineage. In the original trilogy we are told a great many details about the Skywalker family tree

• Luke is Vader's son
• Luke is Leia's sister
• Luke an Leia are twins (I was doubtful that this was in the original trilogy but both Obi-wan and Vader mention it briefly)

What strikes out as strange is that there are multiple instances where Leia and Vader are emotionally distant to each other despite expectations. Leia meets Vader face to face after he ship is captures in A New Hope and there is not emotional recognition. This seems odd since we know that both are strong in the force and that Vader's relation to Luke let them sense each other later in the series. But we'll come back to the "Force paternity test" later. The second thing that seems strange between Vader and Leia is that Vader searches the force and feels that Luke has a twin sister: Leia. He then goes on to refer to her as "your twin sister" and "your sister" (to Luke). Never once does he even acknowledge her as his own daughter. Third, Leia doesn't attend the ritual burning of Vader's body on the forest moon of Endor after the destruction of the second Death Star. At this point Luke as told her that they are sibling and that Vader is his father. He never says Vader is her father and she isn't shaken by the fact that he seemingly is hers as well. Shes doesn't feel the need for closure with Vader, either for the destruction of her home planet Alderaan or to deal with the death of her possible father, by attending his funeral. From all of this is seems that Luke and Leia, while twins, do not share the same father. And this is a point that has bothered me for a while now. There is absolutely no connection between Leia and Vader but there is between Leia and Luke. How can this be? And it becomes even more evident when the "Force paternity test" is brought up. What is the Force paternity test? It is the ability of one strong with the Force to simply know biological relationships between people. We see Luke use it to tell whether Vader is being truthful about their father/son relationship. Luke feels that it is true. We see Leia use something similar to verify that she and Luke are siblings in Return of the Jedi. We possibly see Vader use it to tell that Luke has a twin sister (though it could just be him pulling out the memory of Obi-wan telling Luke) and furthermore we may see it in the fact that Vader seemingly refuses to call Leia his daughter. The last instance I'll postulate this occurs is when the family tree is revealed to Leia. She searches the Force and sees that she and Luke are related but never even hints at a suspicion of being related to Vader. At this point I need to note that I will not be accepting the Episode 3 events as fact. If anyone doubts that Episodes 1-3 are in a different continuity than 4-6 all one has to do is look at the fact that Luke asks Leia :

"Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?" She replies: "She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad."

And if you're going to tell me that Leia remembers that from her birth (that's ridiculous) and Luke does not (that's doubly ridiculous) you're a fool. And if you need more proof, how is it that Obi-wan doesn't know of Leia's existence until Yoda tells him about her, though he was present at her birth in Revenge of the Sith? So without the actions that take place in episode 3 we don't know that Luke and Leia share the same father. From all evidence in A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi it truly seems as if they only share a mother. And that's possible. There is a medical term "hetero-paternal superfecundation" or bi-paternal twinning. This refers to an event when a mother carries two children at the same time from two different fathers. Most often this is when the mother releases two eggs (dizygotic) and has intercourse multiple times, leading to each egg being fertilized by different fathers. It is also possibly that an egg can be released during an already existing pregnancy and that egg can be fertilized by a second person, though this is much rarer. This is all true and it really does happen. Theory: Luke and Leia are a result of bi-paternal twinning. According to the original trilogy this answers every question raised about the family of Vader, Luke and Leia.

• It answers why Leia remembers her real mother. Because she is kept by her real mother and Luke is sent away in order to protect Leia if Vader ever comes looking for his son.
• It answers why Leia feels no connection to Vader though she does feel a conncetion to Luke.
• It answers why Vader never aknowledges any relation to Leia, even when searching the Force on the second Death Star.

And this makes the most sense to me. The fact that I went out to hunt down this information (my wife actually mentioned the medical phenomina from it's inclusion in a One Life to Live plot line) rather than accept the story fed to me by Revenge of the Sith just goes to show how terrible a movie Episode 3 really is. And with that I close my case. What follows is pure speculation. I would guess, without knowledge of episodes 1-3, that Obi-wan is Leia's father. It seems that she does have a conncetion with him the way Luke does with Vader. When she is captured by Vader and the fate of the rebellion is in jeopardy she trusts her gut instincts and sends a message to Obi-wan, a man she has never met before. It also fits that she has been told of Obi-wan, though not enough to make her think that they are related. Also, when Alderaan is destroyed not only would Obi-wan feel the destruction of the planet but the emotion that he experiences would seem to be shared between he and Leia. He is visibly shaken by the even even though he has never been to that planet to our knowledge. He seems to be feeling it through Leia. Is it crazy to think that Luke and Leia's mother was involved with Obi-wan and that Anakin raped her after he turned to the dark side? It fits into original trilogy continuity. However it is just a theory. And while it fits it is not hinted at to nearly the degree that the other theory is; That Luke and Leia are twins that share only a mother.

I’m currently working on a personal project: to rip and organize all of my music to make it easily accessible. Not only am I talking about “artistalbumtrack” format but also accurate tagging. At first I thought it was going to be the album art that would be the trouble but between Media Monkey, Tag & Rename and Songbird I’ve got a pretty smooth work flow down. No, it’s the simple “genre” tag that’s getting me down.

The problem is that genres, after existing for some time, become obsolete. I realized this when I finished giving everything currently ripped a basic genre. Other than a few tricky artists (I’m looking at you, Bowie) it was fairly simply. But looking at my collection afterward I saw something shocking: most of my music was in a very few number of genres. Mainly “pop” and “indie”. In fact, that’s the incredible majority of my collection right there. And the reason for that is these genres are no longer accurate descriptors for the music.

Pop is the most obvious. When “pop” was first used it wasn’t so much a genre as a market or even an industry. You had classical, jazz, maybe country and pop. Popular music. But then everything people talked about was pop so pop had to be subdivided. Today the genre “pop” is actually a sub-genre of the original pop which makes it all the more confusing. But pop was spun off into the sub-genre pop with the advent of “alternative” as a genre. It was originally an alternative to mainstream pop. So then there was poppop and popalternative. But in the 90s almost everything turned to popalternative. So then we end up with things like indie. Indie used to stand for independent and was used to describe unsigned bands. You could have indiepunk, indiepop, indiecountry, etc. But pretty soon that became inaccurate as well. Indie itself became a genre instead of a market description so popindie was born.

This means that indiepop is a very different sounding genre than popindie. The first is an unsigned pop band while the latter is a signed (and most likely expensively produced) indie band. The difference becomes more pronounced the deeper the sub-genre is before it’s appropriated into standard pop. Take “emo” for instance. Originally emo would have mapped (pop or indie)punkhardcoreemo. That would be a band like anything from Glassjaw to At The Drive-In. That band sounds nothing like popemo which would be something more akin to Fall Out Boy or My Chemical Romance.

It looks like with a constantly shifting music system the only classification that will keep working is one based on context, hence the full lineage system of “genresub-genresub-sub-genreetc…”. However, since I can’t work that into current ID3 tags I’m stuck. Now the question is how far to subdivide the single genre tag I’m given. And that I am still unsure of.

So how do you cut up your music collections, in terms of storage and classification?

Netflix: WTF

And don't forget to check out the poll. Vote for which terrible movie I subject my friends and myself to and then write about!

EDIT: For some reason links don't seem to work for me in Buzznet postings anymore.  Check out the formal poll here:

http://bulletproofheeb.buzznet.com/user/polls/168581/

 

Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus

Name says it all, guys.

 

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

Maybe it's just me but things like this make less sense to me than the rip-off crap I feature.

 

The Terminators

No, it's not Terminator. And if you look closely at the poster you might see Cylons but it's not Battlestar. It's “totally original”.

 

Frankenhood

The following is the actual synopsis:

Eager to escape their morbid morgue jobs, slackers Motown and Darius plan to win the big three-on-three basketball tournament and take home its $25,000 cash prize. When their pal (Charles Q. Murphy) brings to life a tall corpse , they chance upon a wild idea. If they can teach the zombie to shoot hoops, they'll be unbeatable on the court – right?

 

Joyce Vedral: Cougar Workout

At last! A workout just for older women obsessed with bedding younger men!

 

Against the Dark: Last Night

Ok, ok, ok. Vampires take over the world. I know but it gets better! The only person who can stop it? Commander Tao played by... Steven Seagal! That is all.

 

Sharks in Venice

There are sharks. In Venice. And Stephen Baldwin.

 

Wieners

Wow, the same cast of Good Burger made the crappy b-movie knock off themselves. I guess that saves time.

 

The Day the Earth Stopped

Stopped? Why, that's almost like standing still.

 

Attack Girls' Swim Team vs. the Undead

The name says it all.

 

The Gay Bed & Breakfast of Terror

Gay couples check in but they don't check out.

 

Yeti: A Love Story

5 college students are sent to be sacrificed to the Yeti. The twist? The Yeti like young men... sexually. The other twist? One of the boys may like the Yeti.

Movies and the theatres they are shown in are in for a change. It's a silly jump to say they are in trouble, though that's what the entertainment industry loves to cry. It is fair to say they are in trouble if they don't recognize and adapt to the coming shift.

 

I am a bit of an arm chair futurist. I read up on and write about a lot of technical and social trends. At this point I think it's as safe to say for me as for anyone that I'm good at calling upcoming technological trends. Copyright and copyleft are of particular interest to me as I see this as the coming battleground for how ideas are to be regarded in the future.

 

I have a friend who makes no budget independent films. I thought he would be happy when I told him my prediction for movies and film. I told him that higher quality movies would be made for less money, that with the rising interest in home theatres and consumer level high definition (both in terms of viewing and producing) theatres would become less and less relevant to film distribution. I also feel that motion picture film, as with still film now, will never stop being used but will become more of a niche production market than the standard it represents today. To my surprise he did not agree with or look favourably on these ideas.

 

But all that seems to be the way the movie industry is headed. People are noticing the strong trends of remakes, reboots and adaptations. But instead of actually thinking about the “why” of this trend they resort to the lazy English major's brushoff off “There are no originals ideas anymore” which, to be frank, is bullshit. Anyone who looks for new contemporary writers will find new ideas every few novels or so. And looking for new writers doesn't mean picking up the best seller list for names. It takes hunting, but saying that there are no new ideas is crap. There are tons of new ideas and concepts being explored in the medium of the written word and this does not exclude that of film scripts. But none of that answers the question of “why” for all of these rehashed ideas in Hollywood. The reason for that is simple: return on investment.

 

Film studios are taking the same amount of money and channelling it into few numbers of films. That's not to say they are putting out a fewer number of total films but rather the money is strongly skewed to a smaller number. Small budget films get smaller budgets and large budget films get larger budgets. The problem is the budget is now the method for profit prediction. “The more expensive a film the more it should make” is not just the general rule; it is now the law of film. If you real it again you'll notice that law makes no mention of quality. Which is fine since it doesn't have to. Wolverine was recently released and while critics and fans generally gave it the thumbs down it did very well the opening weekend. As a creative adaptation and character piece it was a failure. As a movie put out by Fox Studios it was a success. It might not have been “good” but it certainly proved to be “good enough”.

 

And that's fine. There has always been a place in film for the spectacle along side the character study and the brooding drama. It is a perfectly valid movie type to make. And, like more artistically eyed and (usually) less commercially viable movies, those films should be accepted for the types of success they strive for.

 

Back to issue. Putting all of the money in theses select blockbusters means that studios are specializing. The problem is they don't realize it yet. Big name studios are now excelling at large budget spectacle works that push the edge of technology. And for the first time we are seeing a system where trickle-down theory works. Lucas championed HD digital for the Star Wars prequels and already we have hand held video cameras that record with broadcast television quality. And it is precisely this level of technology that is opening the door for smaller film makers to produce professional looking films. Theses people are able to make films that look like “real” movies, though not the spectacles that still require huge budgets. So now big studios take comfort in making remakes since a movie that's been made once has already proven itself and, in the cases of franchises, already has a fan base which is guaranteed cash for at least the first instalment. But because of camera technology these no and low budget film makers now have the ability to step into the gap in films that has come with this specialization.

 

So what have we covered?

• Movies with big budgets are less risky because huge profit, rather than good profit, is a necessity.

• Studios are focusing on the “spectacle” genre more and more, leaving other types of film off their lists.

• Small budget film makers have the ability to produce professional looking movies that large studios aren't making.

 

And all of that brings us to the other half of the film ecosystem: the theatre. Well, other half for now. The key to this section is to remember that with new technology comes new markets. This is the pay-off so pay attention. Movie theatres aren't dead (if they adapt) but they are no longer the only viable path for success. It used to be that a movie came out in theatres to do well and on home video to make a small profit, if a profit at all. If not now then soon, this will no longer be the case! And home video isn't the only alternative path.

 

Right now I'd like to explicitly state that there is a coming split in how movies can be looked at. Completely independent of quality the split is “big budget” and “no budget”. Low budget is in there too since budget is a gradient rather than on/off qualifier but let's put that in with the big budget/studio side for now. So big and no budget it is. That's the production side of things. Now we're getting in the other half of the paradigm shift and that is distribution. This side is no less important to so don't write if off as such.

 

As I said, the old split used to be film release verse home video release and there was a stigma against the latter. It was like a class system with film being the affluent 2%ers. Now let's look at distribution in light of all the options people have now and will have in the very near future. Key points to pay attention to:

• HD at home is becoming the standard

• Media computers attached to TVs is becoming more and more prevelant (PS3, Xbox 360, Apple TV in addition to media center PCs)

• The big names are now doing home distribution through this method via streaming websites like NBC.com, Fox.com, ABC.com, Hulu.com, etc.

• Film or TV release is fast becoming an optional path to success rather than the only path

 

That last one might make you wonder if I'm more optimist than realist but I assure you it's true. Like most trends this starts where the money is and trickles down when price drops. The problem is self release is a boon mainly to the no budget people but has to start with the high budget people, who have less to gain from it. However, look to the music industry. They have been hitting the snags that all media is or will face but faster since the turnover rate of both pop-culture trends and technology move so much faster in the music industry. Their big studios are facing distribution problems and rather than adapt chose to fight it. Where did it get them? Why, bigger names are shifting over to, not dropping down to, self publication. REM, Nine Inch Nails, Madonna, Radiohead... the list goes on and on and will only get larger. Now these people are distributing on the same networks as any old shmoe on Myspace or with their own dot com. And we're seeing this same shift in other media like movies, TV and print.

 

Now let's look at the film industry. We are already seeing big names look to alternative pricution and distribution. Both Zoe Bell and Rosario Dawson have internet only series out. And if you want one that epitomizes success in a new medium then look at Dr. Horrible. Self produced on all levels, self distributed and both a commercial and critical success. Now, self made movies have been around for a long time but with the internet self distribution is a completely feasible alternative. Granted, it's still new territory so it will most likely need to be cleared by those people with more money than the average no budget film maker, but the land is there soon it will be ready to be settled.

 

Which brings me to my second split. So far we have big/no budgets with low falling somewhere between. Traditionally neither one has been more or less valid of a movie type. Each has its own pros and cons. Big budget tend to look more polished but have less artistic content. Low/no budget tend to make less but get better critical review. The second dichotomy is in terms of release. Soon there will be a theatre/self release split. And like the budget ranking, both of these will have ups and downs. Theatre will have more of a guaranteed audience but will take a much larger investment to make happen and will therefore require a larger return to break even. Self release will be much cheaper and therefore have a much better possible profit with a small audience but marketing will be much more difficult and the audience will most likely not reach theatre numbers.

 

The obvious match up is big budget to theatres and low/no budget to self release but there will be crossovers. Imagine something like the Blair Witch Project except without the restrictions of working in a cheap looking medium. That's a no budget/theatre pairing. Web series and no budget HD is still a newborn form but I assure you that there will be a few breakout money makers from the no budget/self release as well. And then once that happens things will get interesting.

 

Imagine a trend of high budget/self releases. Viral only, big name projects. It's being tested now and Dr. Horrible walks the line, being a low budget but big name production. There's also the fact that once a production proves itself in a low budget form it is ripe for the spectacle pick-up. Something made cheap and put out there for the world to see, if successful, can guarantee quality and/or audience. Want an example of that? How about the upcoming Peter Jackson production Sector 9. It was a short film that was made from the low/no budget side of film making that so impressed people that it was picked up to be a big film. So while it's technically a remake it is still completely new to more than 99% of viewers.

 

There's a big split coming. Hollywood and theatres have been driving up prices because they are making a fatal flaw. They are still viewing themselves as the sole valid means of film success. But they are unarguably specializing in pure money makers more and more. Their big problem is that they are cutting out markets that still have demand and then wondering why their business is suffering. They are cutting out quality as a standard and quality is a big market. The spectacle cash cow is valid too, but money does not always equate quality so people are looking elsewhere as well as feeling less obliged to follow traditional consumer methods. Piracy may be up but it's a logical argument to say that a lot of spectacle movies aren't worth the ticket price. To people brought up on technology there's not a huge difference between pirating a crappy movie and renting it. The studio doesn't see much money from rentals (they tried to make that illegal once too) so what's the difference to the consumer? Cash in their pocket and little else.

 

Should Hollywood get out of the quality business all together and leave that to the no/low budget film makers out there? No. But they do need to recognize that they need to evolve in a changing market and actually have, by specializing. They need to realize that internet releases and distribution through DVD only sources like Netflix is not the second tier home video market it used to be. The real thesis is that there are new methods of production and distribution in the film world and the only people ignoring them so far are the big studios and the theatre chains. Is there a reason why a movie made for less should be regarded as lower quality? Then why should a movie made available through a web site be any less valid than a theatrical release. Hell, why are non-theatre releases not looked at for second runs on the big screen? Is it any question that Dr. Horrible would make some sort of profit it put out in theatres?

The world of film is changing. Hollywood is changing. Home video releases are changing. Does this mean that the age of the theatre and big budgets and big names is over? No but the market that feeds them is not locked in anymore. One way or another Hollywood will realize this, though whether it's while they are growing and developing more efficient techniques or while they watch their consumer base shift to home theatres and rampant piracy is up to them. And that's only half of the equation. No/low budget producers and directors better start analysing their options to get in on the new markets early. And while both sides will need to embrace the coming changes out of necessity it's Hollywood that has the handicap of assuming it can ignore it longer than the amateur film maker. Their money has created a complacency that they really can't afford any longer

 

Appendix

 

And that's about it. There are still many other factors that can be looked at for a more accurate prediction and examples out there to learn from. Creative commons will eventually have a huge impact in film and music. Also, different methods of releasing physical media will play a huge role in all types of viewing. For example, I can give you two examples of movies that you can hold viewings for yourself without paying the makers a cent and legally collecting 100% of the ticket money.

 

• RiP: Remix – a documentary about Creative Commons and music, focusing on Girl Talk as a dynamic example.

• Sita Sings the Blues – A great independent animated movie. What's amazing about her business model is that through her you can order digial tapes, a DVD, 35mm prints or even a hard drive with the digital versions of all those formats. Or you can download the digital version of any of those formats for free. Read up on her page to see why.

• Hunt For Gollum – While this might not be groundbreaking as a film in its own right, watch this 40 minute, $6,000 fan film and just compare the quality with the budget. With the budget twice that of Clerks it looks, visually, much more than twice as impressive. Now imagine if these guys made something for $12,000 that was based on an original concept. It's not this film so much as the possibilities it represents in for the shifting budget to visual quality ratio. Not to mention it's already had exposure in not only nerd-circles but also on NPR.

• Dr. Horrible – If you haven't seen this yet then... just do.

• Countless documentaries on Netflix have been made with more love than budget but still do a great job at showing people a world they never knew about. Hunt around for some.

So now that Bryan Fuller is back on Heroes the episodes haven't been as bad, though the plot is just as craptacular as ever. But of course being in charge of Heroes now is like being made captain of the Titanic today; you have to somehow steer it up from the depths of it's briny grave just to become what is standard for every other ship in the world. What I mean to say is I figured season 5 to be the first chance of not sucking for Heroes.

I have to say I was both impressed and disappointed in the psycho Sylar plot. Impressed because it's been a long time coming and they do finally make him flat out crazy. Disappointed because it seemed so abrupt and because of that seemed a bit thin. He should have gone completely nuts a long time ago so all this feels more like lip service then the manifestations of a long and winding path that he's taken.

Speaking of rushed: remember how Matt prophecized DC would explode? Remember how the last time they did that do a city (NYC) they spent half a season trying to track down the cause and stop it? Remember them doing that for even one episode this time? No? That's because they haven't. So I'm sure the finale next week will seem a bit rushed. If they remember to get back to that plot. Sometimes they don't.

Now that the complaining is out of the way I think it's time to get to what you all came here for: the LOLHeroes. It's been a while so forgive me if I'm rusty. And away we go.

 

 

Note

There are a lot of people who refuse to review the work cut of Wolverine because they don’t want to encourage piracy and hurt the entertainment industry. I do not think that piracy is a bad word and as for hurting ticket sales; I’m actually more excited for the theatrical release than I was before I saw this rough cut.

In context this is not a replacement for the movie. It’s lacking a lot of special effects and was made before all of the extensive re-shoots. If anything this is like a behind the scenes documentary without the narrative audio track. You see the wires and the filler CG. And all the while you know that there’s a plot that was created after this was put together so it’s not the whole story.

It’s also an action movie and you already know who survives into the first X-Men movie. No one that I know of has ever skipped a great action franchise movie because they knew that the main character was going to survive. It’s a given anyway.

Me? I watched this with the idea that if I thought it was better than X3 I would see it in theatres like I originally intended. If it was as bad or worse (is that possible) I’d save my ticket money. I’m still buying a ticket.

 

Review

Something like a work cut is hard to review. I can’t judge it by how well it integrates special effects. I can’t review the editing because that’s not finished. I can do the acting and characterization but even that may be revised before this hits theatres. But what I can do is review the experience of watching Wolverine. And it was a pretty good experience.

First off I will tell you that one of the weakest aspects of Wolverine was Deadpool. That said, it’s reported that Deadpool was as the centre of the major re-shoots so that’s not a permanent strike against this movie. Deadpool has only a small amount of lines and the ones he has are smart-ass but not very snarky or sharp.

The actual Wolverine origin is lifted nearly 100% from the Wolverine: Origin comic by Bill Jemas and that works out well. The credits are done over a montage of James (Wolverine) and Victor (Sabertooth) fighting through various wars and not dying. A lot. The credits end with them in Vietnam. Victor is about to rape a local and is stopped by his own troops. Wolverine comes to his aid and they are both set to be executed. The end. Actually, Striker comes by and drafts them into the American military’s Weapon X program.

This does set up the dynamic between James and Victor well, though it’s never really made clear why James keeps signing up for war. Is it to keep an eye on his older brother? Because he certainly doesn’t have the cruel streak or bloodlust of Victor. He also doesn’t snap and go into his “Wolvie Berserker” mode so it’s not a rage thing either. Is it loneliness? Simply devotion to his only surviving family? That aspect feels unexplained.

And apparently James realizes this because on the second mission with the Weapon X team he walks off, sickened by the violence for the first time in… 4 or 5 wars. A little inconsistent, I know. It looks good while watching it but when you stop to think it seems pretty fickle. After leaving for his own life he’s inevitable drawn back into Striker’s machinations and we start to see cameos.

There’s a completely unnecessary part written for Cyclops that’s actually laughable in its execution, especially in the later parts to ensure that he never sees Wolverine.

There’s also a smaller than expected role for Gambit. They get him half right. He’s handsome but not rugged. He’s southern but not Cajun. He’s a gambler but not very self-serving. That said I was very pleased with how they expand and display his powers. But he’s certainly not perfect and deserved a little bit more of an edge to keep him true to form.

Emma Frost shows up but doesn’t even hint at having any sort of psychic abilities at all. It’s just her in and out of her diamond form. And to anyone not familiar with her diamond form they will probably be a bit confused as to what she’s doing when she uses her power. And to anyone familiar with her character they will be confused by her tan.

I’ve already covered the issue with Deadpool and the fact that it might be fixed by now. The last thing that does strike an off note is Striker and his many insidious medical ideas. The big one we know and love is James/Wolverine. But the main villain in this is Deadpool, augmented with all the captured mutants’ powers. Combine that with his secondary Cerebro from X2 and he seems more like a Dr. Frankenstein than a military mind. I know that the Striker of the films was created as a “new” character, an amalgam of various villains. But in the first 2 movies we know that he’s a clear-cut military man. Wolverine was years ago and Cerebro 2 was obviously a military project, as he didn’t actually construct it himself. So why does he act as a mad scientist in Wolverine Origins? He captures mutants but his main interest isn’t imprisoning them. His main interest is in extracting their DNA. I think this could be taken care of with a few simple changes like making sure he never wears a lab coat and converting the lab from simply a science lab with human cages to more of a prison like instillation.

All that said I found this early cut entertaining. Combined with the knowledge that some of my complaints have probably been addressed already it comes across as very promising. I actually buy Liev Schreiber as victor Creed despite the fact he doesn’t tower over James/Wolverine. There are a lot of liberties taken with Marvel’s X-Men canon so be warned of that. People who probably never met in the comics are now family. Ages and timelines changed around. All I can say about that is if you’re a big comic fan (as I am) keep in mind that this movie is not an Ultimate X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, Astonishing X-Men, Young X-Men or X-Men: First Class movie. It is in line with X-Men 1, X2 and X3. Those movies have established their own universe and this fits into that and none of the comics. When people aren’t made out to be exactly as you expect it’s because these are different versions of those characters.

 

Rating

On my scale of –5 to 5 X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a 3, with strong expectations for the final release.

Watchmen is a mixed bag in terms of quality.  After seeing it it's not really possible to flat out say it's a good or bad movie.  It's a movie made of polarizing aspects that don't mesh very well.  There are good parts and there are bad parts.  I'd go so far as to say that there are great parts and god awful parts.  In the end it is worth watching but it certainly is not as good as it could or should have been.

I'll start on the good parts so as not to sound like a complete malcontent.  There are some really great performances in Watchmen.  Jeffery Morgan delivers exactly what you'd expect from the Comedian.  He's cruel and abrasive and never hateful.  He comes across as a psychopathic Taoist; always acknowledging the worst in humanity and himself without judging it.  Jackie Haley is a fine Rorschach despite being a bit too old for the role.  I've heard it mentioned that he sounds a bit like Bale's Batman at the end of Dark Knight but has anyone read Watchmen since it was published decades earlier and not heard that voice?  Patrick Wilson's Night Owl (II) is the human thread that holds this whole soup of a movie together.  The scene where he fails to perform sexually and then stands naked in front of his old costume is the single moment when this movie starts to feel like it has something to offer viewers that they can't get elsewhere.  That feeling wavers and at times vanishes, but I'll get into that later.  On the opposite side of the human equation is Doctor Manhattan.  His looks are spot on but Billy Crudup's voice is much higher than I would have expected Manhattan to be cast with.  It turns out to be stroke of brilliance.  While his actions still keep him increasingly aloof and withdrawn from the human race his voice keeps him grounded and believable.  Since his is a cosmic force with knowledge of both the future and the past unless drawn out it seems hard to swallow but Crudup has a softness that makes it work.

Who doesn't?  Malin Akerman has less range in her acting than an amateur David Duchovney.  In scenes when she's supposed to be disgusted and shocked she stretches her craft and reaches a blandly annoyed place.  At best she's forgettable scene dressing and at worst she is a walking mood killer in a tight latex suit.  Matthew Good's Adrien Viedt is also a terrible addition to the cast.  He starts out with a light southern lilt that is a bit reminiscent of Brad Pitt.  As the film goes on he begins to whisper his lines as if he's trying to seduce the sound editors.  Then he gets bored with that and cycles through various vague European accents.  I realize that he's British and might suck at accents but why does that make him sound like a Die Hard villain by the end of Watchmen.  That odd "is he German" accent that inevitable looses against Bruce Willis: he has it and it makes no sense.  Not only that, but between his hair and choice in clothing he comes across as the brilliant third of the Night at the Roxbury dancers.

Visually the design of Watchmen is great.  If you sit down with the book right after the movie and compare scenes you will find that there are probably details you saw on screen that escaped your notice when reading the book.  An example I can give is that when Dan Dreiberg (Night Owl II) and Laurie Jupiter (Silk Specter II) get into an alleyway brawl I was thrown when Dreiberg snaps one of the gang member's arms.  Well, upon rereading the book he does indeed break a man's arm in that scene.  The details and background characters are absolutely stunning.  And that's part of the problem as well.  If one has not read the book it is hard to imagine that they will get the full payoff that Snyder expects them to when focusing on seeming random details at points.  There is a part where the camera lingers on a young comic book reader and a newspaper vendor that will seem out of place unless you know how big a role they play in the book.  There's also a scene at the end involving a small copy shop called The New Frontiersman that is not set up or explained, leading to a possibly hazy moment that is crucial to understanding the end of the story.  Another visual weak spot is the aging makeup.  Judging by how Nixon ages it seems that his nose simply gets longer and more cartoonish.  The Comedian barely gets older while his contemporary The Silk Specter ages at an alarming pace.  The moral of this story seems to be the harder you live the younger you look.

So now I come to the part where I can freely discuss what fails miserably.  Let me start with the music selection.  Many scenes open with or are punctuated with an incredibly obvious song while all on screen sounds drops away.  There's a muted funeral with "The Sound of Silence" played over it.  When shown a character who wants to control the world you might hear Tears for Fears' "Everybody Wants to Rule the World".  The opening credits show snapshots that illustrate how the Watchmen time line differs from ours while Dylan croons "The Times They Are A'Changing".  Nearly every song played is too obvious a choice and played in too obvious a manner.  The one that really bothers my is the "Ride of the Valkyries" played as Doctor Manhattan and The Comedian torch Vietnamese troops.  While I understand that this is a heavy-handed nod to Apocalypse Now it completely bastardizes that same song as used in the book, where it takes on a depressing connotation rather than an invigorating one.

Zach Snyder's slow motion fetish also interferes with the film in many parts.  While he has stated that he does it to emulate the framing of moments in comic book panels it gets beyond distracting.  Nearly every fight scene seems to be half slow motion, leading me to believe that had he kept those shots in real time his 3 and a half hour directors cut could have clocked in under 2 hours.  Instead of feeling like a comic frame it seems that Snyder simply wants to show how pretty his movie is.  There's no subtlety or restraint in any of his directorial choices.  Every bit of blood that appears it the book is highlighted and some new ones are cooked up just to compensate for the fact that he has absolutely failed at capturing a gritty 1985 NYC.  That's right, there's absolutely no sense of time this (technically) period piece.  1960s music and TV play overhead and on screen and while a lot of this movie is in historical flashback this rule holds just as true for the 1980s scenes.  How can an 80s movie have the same soundtrack as Forrest Gump?

The end result is that this movie is still enjoyable, despite its flaws and director.  The artistic design, Moore's story and characters, and most of the performances carry the whole film.  It could have been better.  It could have been worse.  Was Zach Snyder a good choice?  It's hard to know.  Most directors would have tried to put a much more personal touch on the project rather than defaulting to the source material for almost every single frame.  If the director makes good choices then it improves the film version.  Bad choices and, well, you get it.  I suppose all we know is that Snyder is a bad director who's smart enough not to try too hard creatively.  If that sounds like a back-handed complement... that's because it is.  But on the bright side Watchmen is not a bad movie and Snyder can still take credit for that.

Rating:
On a scale from -5 to 5 Watchmen ranks +2.

And now I hear that you pulled support for Boxee.  The point of Hulu is to get TV on demand, through the internet and with advertising so the network providers still prosper.  How does insuring that it not show up on a TV screen and only small monitors help your network partners?  How does limiting the convenience of a good product help anyone?

I would really like to know what the issue is.  People who use Boxee are probably tech savvy and will probably find some other way of watching their shows on their TVs.  Since networks are legally obligated to NOT put locked flags on their  broadcasts bittorrent looks like a viable and even legal (as of this moment) alternative.  And of course, the networks won't get numbers or advertising revenue from that.

If you can actually tell me the thought that went into this then let me know because me and a lot of people I know are completely baffled by an internet TV provider's fear of televisions.

Movies

·      Watchmen - (14 minutes) The production looks a lot better than I expected or hoped for.  The sets are amazing, the details telling.  However, in the 13 minutes we were shown the film went into Snyder-Slow-Mo about 15,000,230,230,324 bajillion times.  It's distracting and insulting.  The entire time it felt like Snyder wanted to show off how great the details of the film are so he slows it down to show you, assuming the audience doesn't know how to watch a movie without help.  The beauty of the book is that it's not really about superheroes.  It's a thriller that's more political that caped.  The movie didn't seem to get that and I think Snyder is only making a pretty looking version of the Watchmen basics without touching on Alan Moore's deeper themes.  It might be a good superhero movie but it doesn't look like it will try to accomplish anything more than that.

·      Terminator 4 - (7 minutes) Everything McG said made me trust him more and more.  I went into the panel wincing that his name was on this and left with hope.  He discussed everything from his douche-bag name to Bale's freakout to how he regards the Charlie's Angels movies as well as how this movie fits in continuity.  As far as continuity goes it follows the spirit of 1 and 2 while acknowledging the shift in time line from 3.  It has nothing to do with the show so those are now in branching time lines.

·      Friday the 13th - It's got that super white guy who's on Supernatural and was in Gilmore Girls as Dean.  He was there.  It made me want to watch Gilmore Girls.  It's a Bay produced slasher remake.  Not to be racist but they all look alike to me.

·      Wonder Woman - (whole damn thing) The new DC animated movie with Kerrie Russel and Nathan Fillion. Every time I see a DC animated movie I wonder why they aren't big news. They should be.  This movie is really really really really good.  Lot of hilarious lines and it actually makes her story not seem weird and dated and odd with its pantheon history.

·      Up - (48 minutes) They announced limited seating to the first half of Pixar's Up.  It was held in a room that seats 3,000 and they let in around 300.  It was amazing and it's not even done.  in the first 10 minutes they touch on topics I wouldn't think Pixar would approach for another 5 years.  The look is bright, the textures mindblowing and the design is specially constructed to make you like the characters in a second.  I wanted to see this movie before the showing.  Now I want everyone to see it.

·      Dead Like Me movie - Just saw a trailer which was more of a teaser.  No Fuller on this one but it follows directly from the show with the same cast and some of the writers so I'm happy.

Television

·      Dollhouse - (8-10 minutes) Complicated show so it's hard to get a feel from such a short clip. It's Whedon so I'm sold for the first half-season.  He spoke about how he wasn't sure of the thread to follow and it didn't sound like he was comfortable with the material yet.  Between that and the "eh" reviews I've heard I'm a little wary but we'll see.

·      Fringe – (10 minutes) The cast sounds like they're having fun.  The production seems a lot more laid back than Lost and I don't know if it's the lack of obtuse plotting, the fact it doesn't make the cast and crew movie to a distant island or just goofier people.  Noble is adorable.  He sat there denied that there's anything odd or disturbing about the show at all.  Jackson sounds a bit like his character if his character wasn't an ass.  He had comments on everything and stories about everyone.  And he seemed to appreciate the Mighty Ducks shout-outs.  Someone from the audience spent a lot of time asking for Torv's phone number and, while I can't really blame them, she's married so that was awkward.  Oh, and as for the show: there is more back story than what's been spelled out.  The symbols that appear during the credits and that bumper commercial breaks are a code that reveals information about the large conspiracy.  There are also clues to next weeks episode in every show.  And, of course, there's the “find the observer” game because he's supposedly in every episode.

Games

·      Ghost Busters  - This looks amazing.  The Wii version is cute and cartoony, though I was told the graphics have been improved since that revision.  What really made my jaw drop was the 360 version.  If you want realistic then this is the version for you.  The shadows, movements and modeling is the best I've seen.  The closest thing I can compare it to is Dead Space but with more attention to details on the characters and locations.  And yes, you can cross the streams.

·      House of the Dead:  - It looks like a grindehouse game.  There are all the scratches and dust you'd expect in the picture and the colour is slightly yellowed and 70s looking.  The graphics are in line with how House of the Dead has progressed.  They've never been the most realisitc games on the market but they have been getting steadily better with each one.  This definitely looks like it was produced after HOTD 4.  This goes on my short list of Wii games I must own.

Related Groups: Buzznet Secret Cinema, Mourn The Squid

Has anyone one else out there been sucked into or suckered into American Idol? Normally the statistics would be “yes” but I have no idea what the demographic is for my friends and readers. But as it stands yes, I do watch it.

This isn’t an excuse but an explanation. It’s all my partner’s fault. If it were not for her I can guarantee you that I would not be watching American Idol unless someone snuck their way on as part of a ridiculous social experiment to mess with the American public (hint hint). But I do watch it now and after a few seasons as a viewer and, yes, even as a voted I can tell you why I continue to watch it. Elitism.

Elitism? I see you pull your head back in confusion, your brow furrows and your mind runs through the possibilities of that statement. How can what amounts to little more than a super-popular Star Search with record numbers of viewers in this country and franchise competitions abroad be fueled by elitism? It’s the very definition of popular as in population. So I’ll tell you. The elitist in me (which is probably about the same percentage that’s made of water) hates to see the talentless thrive. I still love the early embarrassing episodes where I get to see the talentless but I don’t want to see them win. Last season when the Keri Russell look-alike kept pulling ahead because she sang carefully selected patriotic songs I raged. How could this easy on the eyes but not on the ears singer be hanging on like some kind of blond and bubbly barnacle? I do realize that my last sentence answers its own question but you know what I mean. So I had to vote. And while American Idol doesn’t follow an electoral college it also doesn’t have all of the lovely little additions of a parliamentary voting system such as “no vote” so in order to vote against her it made me vote for damn near everyone else.

There are others that stay on because of their looks rather than talent. Many in fact. If you’re a watcher you might remember Kelly Pickler who wondered why Simon likened her to a fur coat when he called her a Minx. Or even David Archuleta last season who seemed to appeal to every single fag-hag out there, giving hope that maybe not all homosexuals will embrace who they are. That maybe some will try to play it straight forever and thus keep the demand for beards strong in this economically weak and socially accepting economy. There was “you let me stay on but I thought I was one of the joke contestants” Scott who tried to make it on tour despite scheduling conflicts with his family court dates. And watching these people parade out night after night builds up feelings of shock or disgust or flat out incredulity. How can America keep calling them back while kicking off much more talented people? They cannot be allowed to win! Despite the fact that I have never and most likely will never buy and Idol winner’s CD these people cannot be declared the winner of anything when they should be declared LOSERS. Publicly. In front of millions of people. Live. By mandate. So it becomes less about the music and more about injustice of the system and the lack of taste shown by the general viewership.

Are you starting to understand how this system can suck you in? It’s like a microcosm of the US presidential race except they don’t stop you from voting again. Who wouldn’t try to fix it? So today the show starts anew with its 8^th season and I shall watch it. I was disappointed to learn that they are cutting back the number of pre-competition episodes this year. You know, the ones where they parade out the painful and embarrassing singers. The ones who think that American Idol auditions are a natural extension of OtakaCon and other costume-play conventions. I guess the political equivalent of that would be to put George Bush Jr. through all the debates with the knowledge that they’re not only going to bar him from running but also that the speaker of the house will come out and tell him to find a new line of work and that his ears stick out. In short: intensely satisfying.

Related Groups: Watchers United

There are a lot of nice things about having a "Media Center PC" (MCPC).  I watch Netflix streaming movies on my TV, vodcasts and internet shows, I can read through the newest LOLcats on a big screen and of course it plays DVDs.  But one of the best features is that I can use it instead of a video recorder.  If I miss a show or simply don't want to watch it when it's on I can download it and watch it later.  And it's great to not be stuck watching it in front of my computer.  Another wonderful thing is that you get the show from the original airing station.  For example, if you watch Dr. Who or Primeval then you'll get it from the BBC or Sky network respectively and that means you are watching along with England, sometimes up to 2 season ahead of the state.

I swear by this system.  All it really does is make filters to watch for shows and then pulls them down all by itself.  I leave my filters running all the time so I don't have to worry about what is currently airing and when it'll start up agin.  What shows?  I am currently running the following filters:

• Doctor Who
• Eureka
• Fringe
• Heroes
• How I Met Your Mother
• Lost
• The Middleman (please get renewed!)
  
• Primeval
• Sarah Connor Chronicles
• Scrubs
• Smallville
• Torchwood (note to self, delete this filter)
  
• True Blood
• The Venture Brothers
• The Mentalist

Even if you don't have an MCPC this can still help you.  I'm going to show you how to make a list of TV shows you like and have them delivered in high quality right to the computer of your choice.  Here's what you'll need on your computer:

• uTorrent
• Some space to save shows.  Half hour shows are under 200 mg and hour long shows are under 400 mg for the most part.

---

1. Run uTorrent. uTorrent (pronounced "mu torrent") is a really good bittorrent manager.  The official download is an EXE that doesn't even need installing.
   
   
   
2. Click the RSS button.  It should be the third from the left.
   
   
3. You'll see a window to enter your feed.  This is a list of downlaodable shows that automatically updates as new shows are made available.  Fill it  out just like below:
   
   
   

   The feed is http://tvrss.net/feed/eztv/ and click "custom alias" and enter "EZTV", the web site that publishes the feed.
4. EZTV will appear at the bottom of the left side bar with the RSS icon next to it.  Click it and you should see a list of shows like so:
   
   
   
5. The last step is to create a filter for a show.  If you don't see an episode of the show you want there then you'll have to click Options: RSS Downloader (control + R).
   
   
   
   If you do see it then right click the show and click "Add to Favorites" and you'll get to the same window.
   
   
6. This window is how you make a filter to search for each show.  You can add new filters by right clicking shows or clicking the add button on the bottom to start from scratch.
   
   
   

   Important fields:
   

   • FILTER: The show title.  It must appear exactly as it's posted so watch for hyphens and spaces.  If it's a complicated show name (I'm looking at you, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) then you're safest bet is to click on it from the feed list and then the title fills it in correctly.
     
   • SAVE IN: You must give a default location in order for the show to start downloading automatically.  Otherwise it'll pop up asking where to save it and you'll have to be at your computer to start the download.
   • QUALITY: If you leave it on "ALL" then it will pull every copy of every episode if people put up different sources.  For a standard TV or monitor you'll want HDTV.  This is also the most common so every show has this format and looks better than cable.  If you want an actual High Def version then look at the listings and see which formats people are uploading in.
7. Minimize uTorrent.  It'll shrink to your taskbar and run on it's own.  Just make sure you're set up with upload and download caps.

---

And that's it.  Shows usually show up within a couple of hour of air time so you'll have it the next morning with out fail.  It's saved to exactly where you want it and ready to watch.  Simple.  I have my hard drive set up with a main folder for all my television and then sub-folders for each show that I have saved by season.  Shows that I watch as the air are all sent to a "To Watch" folder.  For example:
            c:televisiontitle of show

I use the RSS feed from EZTV.it but you can use any bittorrent site that has an RSS feed for TV shows, like Demonoid.

If your computer or laptop has an s-video out (most laptops now do) then you can plug it into your TV and watch on the big screen.  Don't have s-vid on your TV?  S-vid to composite adapters go for less than $10 (I think closer to $4).  And if you need help with hooking your computer up to your TV then leave me a comment and I'll get back to you.

Also, let me know what you think of this.  Easy to follow?  Work for you?  Have a better way?

What is there to say about this movie? As you might know, my rating system is based on enjoyment of a movie as a whole on a scale of –5 to positive 5. It is possible for a movie to be hated as well as liked, hence the negative end of the spectrum. It is also possible for a good movie to not be enjoyable. In the case of something as campy as the Lost Boys series I knew that rating the film would not be a straightforward deal. How wrong I was.

This movie can be condensed to a couple of bullet points, none of which really have to do with the plot in any way. So let me break it down:

Points for:

• Boobs

• Corey Feldman is in it

• The vampires rip someone’s head off

Points against:

• It took my friends and I about 1/3 of the movie to realize the lead male and female characters were siblings rather than lovers

• Corey Feldman tries to do a Batman voice the entire movie

• Sometimes the characters tried to talk and it never really worked out

At this point the movie was at a flat 0 for me, which is something I have rarely encountered. I felt absolutely nothing at all. We were all talking and barely noticed the TV unless something loud occurred. But then…

---

SETTING: BEACH-NIGHT

CAST: VAMPIRES AND LEAD MALE (IN PROCESS OF TURNING)

The vampires turn a beach party into a blood bath. They attack their unwitting human dates and blood flies everywhere. The lead male does not want to kill as this will further his transformation to vampire. Suddenly without warning…

Corey Feldman as Frog appears from over a hill, two sharp wooden sticks in hand.

FROG: Who ordered the stake?

The audience (my friends and I) go nuts. What a wonderful line! It’s terrible, it’s cheesy and it’s completely fitting.

---

And that line is why this movie is rated: +.5