Monday, January 18, 2010
ESPN on the XBOX
If this rumor about ESPN streaming live sporting events to the XBOX is true, then I officially have no reason to pay for cable. Right now, I could be perfectly happy with cable on Saturdays and Sundays (and select Mondays and Thursdays (stupid midweek football)) from September through February. That's all I need. I would be willing to wait for the DVDs of my favorite shows to come out before I watched them. And if Netflix continues improving the options for streaming content, then a simple $9 subscription could net me a season's-worth of catch-up (not ketchup) for my scripted sci-fi (or SyFy...Hey, I'm Imagining Greater) sweet-tooth. (That last sentence was really difficult to say for an ex-Blockbuster employee)
Random Thoughts
This link will take you to a page with actual Pat Robertson quotes. After reading these ten gems, how can anyone stand behind this man? He stands in his immaculate conception studio spouting his bigoted hate-speech and people listen to him, and agree with him, because he invokes God? I don't wish ill to anyone, but if this man would have personally experienced any of the situations that he has trivialized over the years, I dare say he might keep his mouth shut.
Haitians worship the devil? Hurricanes are a response for homosexuality? Liberal media is worse than the Holocaust? Feminists "leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians"? This guy is perfect for some dick-wad suit on The Office. But for someone who is supposed to be living a promoting Christianity I think he's been severely miscast. Like Hayden Christensen as Anakin bad. (and I actually liked the prequels, just not Hayden's acting)
Haitians worship the devil? Hurricanes are a response for homosexuality? Liberal media is worse than the Holocaust? Feminists "leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians"? This guy is perfect for some dick-wad suit on The Office. But for someone who is supposed to be living a promoting Christianity I think he's been severely miscast. Like Hayden Christensen as Anakin bad. (and I actually liked the prequels, just not Hayden's acting)
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Conan
Am I the only person who thinks that Jay Leno is massively over-rated? (that's rhetorical by the way) For my money, Conan O'Brien is the funniest, most entertaining, most engaging late night host I've personally watched. I say this having never actually watched Jimmy Fallon's show. I enjoy most of what he's done and love the fact that he treats video game releases and nerd website editors like other shows treat movie releases and reality TV stars. (plus - THE ROOTS!!!) I just can't bring myself to stay up until 12:30 when I have to get up early the next morning to go solve world hunger reset some guy's password.
I'm sure Leno didn't have the massive following that he ended with when he first started. (also known as people who fell asleep watching E.R. or their late local news) Could any late night host be any farther from the legend Leno replaced? But NBC stuck with him because they just completely screwed the guy who should have taken over (this guy, who, by the way, is way funnier than Leno). Pulling the plug before he got a chance to carve out his place in late night would be premature and inappropriate.
Flash forward (not FlashForward, that's ABC) 17 years and NBC is in a similar situation. Except they've compounded the problem by hanging onto one guy too long, giving up on one guy too soon, and wanting to push a third guy even later into the morning. Giving Leno a show at 11:35 and pushing Conan and Fallon back a half hour would be a terrible move. What happens in five years when Leno wants to retire? Does NBC replace him with some other half hour comedy and keep the new air-times? Or do the revert back to the timeslots that were good enough for the show's first seven decades and try to pretend like they didn't completely screw everyone involved? (Yes, 2010 marks the beginning of the seventh decade to see the Tonight Show)
I'm sure I'm not the first person to suggest Comedy Central as a remedy to this corporate clusterfuck. Apparently Stephen Colbert even offered Conan his timeslot last night. I'm not sure whether he was serious or not (and honestly, sometimes it's hard to tell with Colbert) but I think it's a brilliant idea. Move the Colbert Report to 10:30, keep the Daily Show at 11:00, and give Conan the 11:30 timeslot on a network that knows how to stick behind talent. I would gladly watch this two hour block of comedy gold on a nightly basis. (Okay, let's be honest. I would probably fall asleep with my TV on that station. But does it really matter to the network whether anyone is actually watching the TV that's tuned to their station? I think not. In fact, wouldn't they rather the person be asleep so that they wouldn't be temped to change the channel when a commercial comes on? I think yes.) With this late night block in place, Comedy Central would absolutely dominate that two hour block with the 18-35 demographic.
I don't want to hear about it being a cable network. Just look at the last several years' Emmy and Golden Globe nominees and winners. Plenty of cable networks there.
I just think this is the best way for NBC to get Leno back on the Tonight Show (everyone knows that's what they both want anyway). And it's also a way for Conan to tell them to shove their new timeslot and go steal a ton of viewers in the process. And did anyone see when these three appeared on each others shows? It was a large portion of the afore mentioned Comedy Gold.
Conan, please accept this open letter as a formal request to prove, finally, that talented, charasmatic people can triumph in the face of safe, overly politically correct, corporate homogenization.
I'm sure Leno didn't have the massive following that he ended with when he first started. (also known as people who fell asleep watching E.R. or their late local news) Could any late night host be any farther from the legend Leno replaced? But NBC stuck with him because they just completely screwed the guy who should have taken over (this guy, who, by the way, is way funnier than Leno). Pulling the plug before he got a chance to carve out his place in late night would be premature and inappropriate.
Flash forward (not FlashForward, that's ABC) 17 years and NBC is in a similar situation. Except they've compounded the problem by hanging onto one guy too long, giving up on one guy too soon, and wanting to push a third guy even later into the morning. Giving Leno a show at 11:35 and pushing Conan and Fallon back a half hour would be a terrible move. What happens in five years when Leno wants to retire? Does NBC replace him with some other half hour comedy and keep the new air-times? Or do the revert back to the timeslots that were good enough for the show's first seven decades and try to pretend like they didn't completely screw everyone involved? (Yes, 2010 marks the beginning of the seventh decade to see the Tonight Show)
I'm sure I'm not the first person to suggest Comedy Central as a remedy to this corporate clusterfuck. Apparently Stephen Colbert even offered Conan his timeslot last night. I'm not sure whether he was serious or not (and honestly, sometimes it's hard to tell with Colbert) but I think it's a brilliant idea. Move the Colbert Report to 10:30, keep the Daily Show at 11:00, and give Conan the 11:30 timeslot on a network that knows how to stick behind talent. I would gladly watch this two hour block of comedy gold on a nightly basis. (Okay, let's be honest. I would probably fall asleep with my TV on that station. But does it really matter to the network whether anyone is actually watching the TV that's tuned to their station? I think not. In fact, wouldn't they rather the person be asleep so that they wouldn't be temped to change the channel when a commercial comes on? I think yes.) With this late night block in place, Comedy Central would absolutely dominate that two hour block with the 18-35 demographic.
I don't want to hear about it being a cable network. Just look at the last several years' Emmy and Golden Globe nominees and winners. Plenty of cable networks there.
I just think this is the best way for NBC to get Leno back on the Tonight Show (everyone knows that's what they both want anyway). And it's also a way for Conan to tell them to shove their new timeslot and go steal a ton of viewers in the process. And did anyone see when these three appeared on each others shows? It was a large portion of the afore mentioned Comedy Gold.
Conan, please accept this open letter as a formal request to prove, finally, that talented, charasmatic people can triumph in the face of safe, overly politically correct, corporate homogenization.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Cinema
I have been extremely lax on staying current with movies. But in the last couple of weeks I have made an effort to see several movies that I missed throughout the year (I guess I have to say last year now). This will probably be a lengthy post so I'll talk about the others later.
First up was Avatar (not Avatar). We had a difficult time deciding between that one and Sherlock Holmes. But the deciding factor was the cinema experience. I figured Sherlock Holmes would be equally great or disappointing (which is sure to be damn near impossible with the people involved) whether we watched it on the big screen or on our mammoth 32" TV at home. But a movie like Avatar, especially in 3D, would suffer a visual beating, worthy of a sure-fire Oscar-winning performance by Hillary Swank (no one takes an on-screen beating like her), if we forced its fetish-in-waiting Na'vi onto our screen.
The main and side plots are nothing revolutionary, but they're also not as derivative as some reviews made it sound. Many parts were somewhat predictable but just as many twists were unexpected. The acting was superb (as superb as one can be playing clichéd stereotypes with myriad explosions all around). But the cinematography and visual effects are where this movie shines. Many times (I lost count how many) I couldn't tell whether some elements of the shot were real or digital. And these weren't easy things to digitally render. Moving trees/waterfalls and the like.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this. On one hand I'm super excited that technology has gotten to that point. But I also understand that means that actors will now stand in a green room and talk to themselves for a month or so during filming and then see the finished product when we do. I'm not actor, but I can't help but think this will harm the art of acting. I remember great acting moments just as much as great action moments. I'll never forget working at Blockbuster and having someone mention Heat. Being incredibly ignorant of most cinema when I was hired, I had never heard of it. Sitting down to watch this movie, and coming upon a scene with Pacino and De Niro sitting across from each other, acting their asses off, really made an impression. If you haven't seen it, just buy it. You'll want to see it a few more times.
(Side Note: As someone who has played MMORPGs for many years I have seen my fair share of horribly rendered water. However, I am currently playing Lord of the Rings Online and I most definitely does not suffer from this affliction (not Affliction). I have been consistently impressed with nearly everything in my almost three years of playing. I can't give Turbine enough praise for how they've run the game from beta through now.)
At one point in the movie I shifted in my seat (it is 150 minutes after all) and leaned my elbows on my knees. I reached up to swat some dust away from my face twice before I realized it wasn't dust; at least not any that I could actually touch. The 3D effects are incredibly subtle in this movie. I am by no means a 3D movie connoisseur. But every 3D movie I've seen, save for Avatar, has used the effects as nothing more than a gimmick.
Also, scale would normally be an issue when dealing with the size differences of things that are in this movie. I absolutely love the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there are a few times in the films when something just looks...off, with respect to the scale. Nothing looks wrong but it just doesn't lock in. That was never an issue in Avatar. You're made to experience the queasiness of seeing something so large it breaks your sense of scale completely. This movie makes you feel scale in the pit of your stomach. This feeling and the 3D effects combine beautifully in one early scene in particular. A giant, and I mean giant, vehicle rolls onto screen and you see people in jeeps (or something similar) in the foreground. The scene lasts longer than a normal shot of this nature would and I think it's for the sole reason of letting you totally take in the scale. But rather than put the mammoth vehicle in a gimmicky 3D shot, Cameron uses the effects on the tiny foreground elements in the bottom right-hand corner. This effectively pulls your eyes to that part of the screen and forces you to refocus when you look at the background. My descriptions don't do it justice but you'll understand when you see it. Nothing really happens in the scene but it still sticks in my mind.
I don't like to give stars or thumbs or bald, naked, gold men but I did enjoy the movie. I would watch it again and recommended it to others.
First up was Avatar (not Avatar). We had a difficult time deciding between that one and Sherlock Holmes. But the deciding factor was the cinema experience. I figured Sherlock Holmes would be equally great or disappointing (which is sure to be damn near impossible with the people involved) whether we watched it on the big screen or on our mammoth 32" TV at home. But a movie like Avatar, especially in 3D, would suffer a visual beating, worthy of a sure-fire Oscar-winning performance by Hillary Swank (no one takes an on-screen beating like her), if we forced its fetish-in-waiting Na'vi onto our screen.
The main and side plots are nothing revolutionary, but they're also not as derivative as some reviews made it sound. Many parts were somewhat predictable but just as many twists were unexpected. The acting was superb (as superb as one can be playing clichéd stereotypes with myriad explosions all around). But the cinematography and visual effects are where this movie shines. Many times (I lost count how many) I couldn't tell whether some elements of the shot were real or digital. And these weren't easy things to digitally render. Moving trees/waterfalls and the like.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this. On one hand I'm super excited that technology has gotten to that point. But I also understand that means that actors will now stand in a green room and talk to themselves for a month or so during filming and then see the finished product when we do. I'm not actor, but I can't help but think this will harm the art of acting. I remember great acting moments just as much as great action moments. I'll never forget working at Blockbuster and having someone mention Heat. Being incredibly ignorant of most cinema when I was hired, I had never heard of it. Sitting down to watch this movie, and coming upon a scene with Pacino and De Niro sitting across from each other, acting their asses off, really made an impression. If you haven't seen it, just buy it. You'll want to see it a few more times.
(Side Note: As someone who has played MMORPGs for many years I have seen my fair share of horribly rendered water. However, I am currently playing Lord of the Rings Online and I most definitely does not suffer from this affliction (not Affliction). I have been consistently impressed with nearly everything in my almost three years of playing. I can't give Turbine enough praise for how they've run the game from beta through now.)
At one point in the movie I shifted in my seat (it is 150 minutes after all) and leaned my elbows on my knees. I reached up to swat some dust away from my face twice before I realized it wasn't dust; at least not any that I could actually touch. The 3D effects are incredibly subtle in this movie. I am by no means a 3D movie connoisseur. But every 3D movie I've seen, save for Avatar, has used the effects as nothing more than a gimmick.
Also, scale would normally be an issue when dealing with the size differences of things that are in this movie. I absolutely love the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there are a few times in the films when something just looks...off, with respect to the scale. Nothing looks wrong but it just doesn't lock in. That was never an issue in Avatar. You're made to experience the queasiness of seeing something so large it breaks your sense of scale completely. This movie makes you feel scale in the pit of your stomach. This feeling and the 3D effects combine beautifully in one early scene in particular. A giant, and I mean giant, vehicle rolls onto screen and you see people in jeeps (or something similar) in the foreground. The scene lasts longer than a normal shot of this nature would and I think it's for the sole reason of letting you totally take in the scale. But rather than put the mammoth vehicle in a gimmicky 3D shot, Cameron uses the effects on the tiny foreground elements in the bottom right-hand corner. This effectively pulls your eyes to that part of the screen and forces you to refocus when you look at the background. My descriptions don't do it justice but you'll understand when you see it. Nothing really happens in the scene but it still sticks in my mind.
I don't like to give stars or thumbs or bald, naked, gold men but I did enjoy the movie. I would watch it again and recommended it to others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)