October 28, 2008LolHeroes - Season 3, episode 7
It's that time again. More LOLHeroes and another theory.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() And of course, your bonus of the week: ![]() The magic formula! Now, go save/destroy the world. So, my theory? This week it seems painfully obvious (if you really read into it) that Heroes has become a representation of national politics. Really. Check it out. The two warring companies are the Republicans and Democrats. Primatech - Democrats
Posted on 10/28/2008 10:13 PM Comments (8)
October 22, 2008LolHeroes - Season 3, episode 6
I know I've been lax and missed 3 episodes. I might go back, but while I was watching them I was too depressed by the lack of AMAZING that Heroes has spoiled me with in the past. Well, never fear. LOLHeroes are back and funny once more.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() I left that one as is because... well, it's so fucking cute that re-captioning wouldn't help. But when you hit the end I made you a special internet toy to keep. ![]() ![]() ![]() You know. Because he's Rafiki. ![]() This show is really not doing to well. They keep telling us about papa Patrelli but we already have mama to fill the "family conspiracy" quota. They are drawing out the Hiro story again, and killed off Adam. The Hiro/Adam part was what held the most promise! Parkman is cute but under-used. No one really cares about Nathan/Not-Niki. Mohinder is laughable at this point. I really do expect him to whisper "take a shot" every time he's on camera. Oh, and Ashly is convinced that the writers are going to Rickroll the audience at some point this season. I had some ideas to fix the show but it's so far gone at this point that they have to take their own path, no matter how bad a choice that is. So what I propose is that NBC gives me a spinoff. I have two ideas:
![]() Oh, and as promised, your Hiro toy. ![]()
Posted on 10/22/2008 10:06 AM Comments (10)
October 21, 2008Umbrella Acadamy movie could use less WayAlternate titled: Step Back, Way Back So over at IESB it's been reported that Universal has optioned Umbrella Academy. From what Gerard Way says it sounds like he's going to be the main problem for this movie. Here's his wish list for people: Writer: Diablo Cody (Juno) Director: Alfonso Cuaró (Children of Men) Costume designer: Colleen Atwood (Sweeney Todd) Sounds like a sweet list, right? Wrong. It's a horrible mash-up of wildy divergent talents. Not only that but their styles don't mesh. Diablo Cody writes fast back and forth quips in the vein of Kevin Smith and Gilmore Girls. Cuaró has a high visual contrast style that focuses on humanity and (at times) eroticism. Those can't really be reconciled easily. It it was you'd end up with a hyper-sexualied Ellen Page that reeked of Lolita. Or you'd get a Children of Men where Moore and Owen shoot back on specific political candidates while bombs exdplode around them, killing all suspense and emotional development. Then, just for some gothy cred, toss in Todd's Colleen Atwood. She might be able to work with Cuaró but it's be a stretch. Way obviously picked her for her Sweeney Todd connection but her style doesn't really go well with the current crop of understated, realistic comic movies that are all the trend and that Umbrella Academy is very much in the same vein as. She's done Memoirs of a Geish as well as The Tick live action pilot. She falls to the runway side of style rather than the everyday. Sure, Cuaró and Atwood could probably make something nice, but not with Cody and certainly not with Way's comic source material. You'd just end up with an awkwardly dark, awkwardly pseudo-hip soap opera in really big costumes. Umbrella Academy (yeah, I read it) is very very very derivative of Doom Patrol. The charm of that book was the social interlplay up against rediculous scenarious. It wasn't about taking itself seriously. For Umbrella Academy the key is to tap into that. Otherwise you'll end up with a big-budget pity-fest. Play up the humor. Look to The Specials or Mystery Men for character/world cosntruction (but not costumes). Play it dry but funny. And at most you can maybe (MAYBE) use two of those three. But even that would be pushing it. My advice? Gerard, pick what you want your comic movie to feel like, not what names will help give it credit. Related Groups:
Buzznet League of Superheros, Buzznet Secret Cinema
Posted on 10/21/2008 10:27 AM Comments (13)
October 17, 2008Costume Update: Gambit is go
I am going to the NYC Halloween Parade as X-Men's Gambit this year. While my costume has involved nearly no sewing it has still been a lot of work. Why? Well, the crowning glory and keystone of this ensemble is a special glove. Because what does Gambit do? He charges cards to make them red and pretty (and full of 'splodey). So I needed to be able to do that to cards. Here is what happened with that aspect of the costume. And my father helped (a lot) with every step, so thanks to him.
Gambit Version 1 - Take clear playing cards and set up an LED array behind them with a switch. It should look like it's glowing. Except clear cards are too clear and covering the back with parchment paper makes the LED array fall off the non-stick surface. When we switched to regular cards there is no where in front to hide the LEDs. Except my palm... Gambit Version 2 - Make a small array of LEDs across the palm of the Gambit glove, powered with a few coin cell batteries. The problem is how to connect the batteries. You see, when we tried to solder them into the circuit one exploded in my face. It would have been great for the costume except it didn't glow red. And it shot chemicals into my face. Gambit Version 3 - Purchased battery holders for the coin cells, along with more flexible wire and switches with solder tabs to hold the insanity at bay. Result? ![]() ![]() ![]() Not only can I make anything in my hands glow but the gloves contain no MSG (says the news paper). The shots are low quality because it was not great lighting and the picture is essentially of the light from an LED set but you get the idea. Also, the batteries you can see wired to my wrist clip into the glove's band using the soldered connections as hooks. The switch is located on the inside of the middle finger so all I have to do is squeeze the cards and they light. So not only is the Gambit costume complete and I've successfully managed to make one awesome accessory but... for the first time in 3 months I have my DSLR in working conditions with both lenses. So I'll be taking that to NYC with me. Expect some great shots. Related Groups:
Buzznet League of Superheros
Posted on 10/17/2008 8:22 PM Comments (8)
October 8, 2008I can fix the debatesSo I don't know how many of you have noticed but this year the live debates aren't working. The first debate was OK but the second one was a crap-fest of astronomical proportions. The VP debate doesn't count since it only had 1.5 candidates present. But the debates are broken this year. Why? Well, the campaign climate is awful. Hillary and the Republicans have taken a gloves off mudslinging stance from the get go and that doesn't really lend itself to civil debate. To make things worse the moderators can't keep the candidates on point for questions. That means we end up with McCain spreading his lies about Obama and then Obama needs to break format to respond. The only way the live debate format will work this year is if they give the moderators the ability to turn off a candidate's microphone and ask them to get back on topic. They aren't allowed to do that. What
I propose is a huge overhaul. First off, there's no reason for the
debates to be 100% live. It's not realistic. What we are saying is
“Sure, in real life you'll have a half hour minimum to respond to any
question ever, plus you'll have a full cabinet of advisors to tell you
things, but when we judge you we want off the cuff perfection. NOW!”
That doesn't make sense to me. Not only that but since it's all spur of
the moment (I know there's preparation but still) that means they can
go back and renege on anything. So I've come up with a new, better and
more appropriate debate format.
That is my proposal. The first phase makes the positions stated more stable and trustworthy than anything they might just happen to say. For instance, at the VP debate Biden, who isn't for same sex marriage but is for same sex couple rights, used the term “marriage” while defending what he thinks all Americans are entitled to. Writing their position down will cut down on incorrect wording. There is also enough time in there for candidates to respond to each other, but since it comes after the prepared portion these responses can't constitute the majority of each persons' speeches. Another important addition this would bring is the need for citations. An example of this is how McCain claims that Obama is for teaching sex education to kindergärtners. What the legislation Obama supported really said was that he was for teach age appropriate sex education in public schools (read the full bill here and read a summary of the issue over at Newsweek). So in kindergarten that mean being taught it's not OK to be touched by adults. That brings up the question: “Why doesn't McCain want little children to know they shouldn't be touched by adults?” Stephen Colbert claims Obama would be sworn in on a gay baby rather than a bible. I claim that McCain would request to touch a slightly older child than a baby as he's sworn into office. Also important is that by having time to think and to have an advisor present for the first portion it is much closer to how a president would react on the job. The audience would be able to judge them in a situation much closer to how they'd perform later. The fact that we can't trust either of the two presidential candidates to actually respond to topics when asked, or to remain civil when left in a room together, doesn't bode well for either of them. It reeks of immaturity, fear mongering and a general lack of decorum and self control that we should require in a president. But since this is what we've got this election we should at least get them to tell us their positions rather than ranting about how they perceive the other guy's platform. Related Groups:
Who Watches The Watchmen?
Posted on 10/08/2008 9:31 PM Comments (4)
October 6, 2008LolHeroes - Season 3, episodes 1 and 2![]() They're back. I'm a little behind but should catch up by next week. I've got to say that I'm not very impressed with the season so far. There are a lot of continuity errors, changes in world structure and poor story telling. Here's hoping for improvement. And now, on with the show! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() See you soon for episodes 3 and 4.
Posted on 10/06/2008 9:35 PM Comments (9)
October 1, 2008Netflix makes some changes and I'm just waiting for the world to noticeSo an interesting development has happened with Netflix. Yes, they released their API which is awesome and means software developers out there will now be rolling out custom Netflix programs across all platforms, but that's not the big news that broke. The other thing Netflix announced is that they have made a deal with Starz Play. And this is where it gets really interesting. Starz Play is a streaming/download service from the Starz cable channel. It isn't a Netflix competitor but rather a Starz station alternative. They have a much smaller selection of movies availible, about 1,000. What Starz will do is roll their selection by keeping the most recent movies up and knocking off the back end. When a new movie is made available to Starz they'll knock off movie 1,000, push everything down and make the new release movie number 1. For $7.99 you can get a Starz Play subscription through Netflix, or get all of Netflix (watch now and disc service) for $8.99 so I'm not sure of the logic in that. What this means for regular Netflix subscribers is that you now have 783 new streaming titles available as of this morning and another 1,500 titles scheduled from Starz by the end of the year. Many of these are new releases like Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Spiderman 3 and Superbad. So far this has just sounded like a Netflix press release so let me tell you what the game changing factor is here. People with Netflix, for all practical purposes, now have access to a premium cable station regardless of their cable subscription. If you have basic cable from any provider but also a Netflix subscription then you have a cable station. Even if you don't have cable at all you still have a cable station. That, along with the Netflix deals with ABC, NBC and the Disney Channel, mean that your cable subscription is fast becoming obsolete. Sure, you could always use bittorrent on sites like EZTV.it and avoid cable all together but this is the first move, from a unambiguously 100% unambiguously legal perspective, to have cable content without cable. Between Hulu, Netflix streams and Comcast's Fancast you can watch most network TV shows the day after they air, in HD, on demand. Without any sort of TV service. The fact that this is rushing in on the heels of Comcast instilling a 260 gig/month bandwidth limit is both exciting and problematic. The reason is that the trade off between this increase TV over the internet is that it takes a lot of data transfer. Speed is no longer the issue, with most people now running residential cable connections instead of dial-up. The issue is managing all of that data traffic. Comcast's response is to cap connections to avoid the tubes being tied. Other providers offer tiered service by having the customer pay by usage. Still, this is great for consumers. Instead of a “get what you pay for” service people are now offered a “pay for what you take” service. Only pay for the bandwidth you use and only pay per channel that you want. It's the equivalent of not paying for food by what you take home, but rather paying for what you use. That extra half gallon of milk that you poured out and never drank? On the house. But you wanted more steak this week? Pay for that instead. Only want 3 movies from Starz instead of the whole channel this month? Then you just pay the bandwidth for those movie and not for the cable service. Just want to catch up on Best Week Ever and Heroes? Then cut off your cable subscription and catch those on the net, paying only for those. While this is all great, it's a new market structure that neither the cable providers nor the stations have yet grasped. If I had to guess, I'd say the stations will catch on right before the cable providers but I have no idea when. What you're seeing right now is a couple of policies mixing and neither group noticing.
On one hand you have TV stations clawing for more audience numbers with online services. I only watch Simpsons on Hulu.com during my lunch break but since Fox wants those numbers they've legitimized internet TV in exchange for being able to count viewers. Instead of just counting watchers for a show the night it airs many places are counting that plus online and Tivo views within 3 days. This will eventually move to 2 exasperate but equally important markets: pure time-shifting online watchers (raises hand) and regular TV audiences. The other policy is that of the internet providers fighting to control their bandwidth usage and attempt to curb P2P. Comcast previously had an unspeakable, invisible cap for their “unlimited” internet plan. After being charged by the FCC they changed it to a public 260 gig/month. This usage limit is what is mixing with the internet viewer scramble and where it mixes is where this new market will be won and lost. In essence you now have content providers and service providers become consumers. A TV station (Fox, NBC, HBO) can now choose how they want their content spread; internet, cable, torrent, iTunes. At the same time you have service providers with a new choice about what to provide. If any cable provider wanted, they could drop all TV signal and focus on the internet. While that sounds like they'd be limiting their market they could easily throw in a Netflix subscription and a Netflix set-top box (the API is public now, remember?) as part of their service the way Comcast currently provides MacCaffey antivirus subscriptions to their subscribers. This would let them focus their money and resources in one specific direction while still offering what people want. And for anyone who is complaining about watching all this on their computer instead of their nice TV, since Netflix has a public API anyone can make a set-top box to play SD and HD streams on their TV from Netflix, Hulu and other sites. That's what we do at my place. Ok, that was a lot to take in. What does it all mean? Well, for now it means that all you TV watchers have lots of options and to the few of you tech-savvy viewers you have little or no need to ever look at a TV schedule again. For you less savvy folks it means that in the future (not too far off) you wont need to look at a schedule. You just need to wait until the TV stations and the cable providers realize this. Because technology isn't as good as the cutting edge of technology; it's only as good as the cutting edge of usable technology. Related Groups:
Buzznet Secret Cinema, Watchers United
Posted on 10/01/2008 3:14 PM Comments (7)
|
ARCHIVE
MY FRIENDS
Buzznet's Official New Age Amazon
PanasonicYouth rockinponda Nessi with an I breesays pompasaurus Seb ™★★★ peterismyplaymate unsceneunheard huldaholm and she was Luna Lovegood FOLLOWERS ALL FRIENDS |














































































