Tags: citizen fluffy, strip generator, puppets, muppets, bunny
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Toilet Training and Incentives: Child No.3
This week marks the end of an era for us. For the past eight and a half years we have been virtually non-stop in nappies. Now I am happy to report that Child No.3, who is just about to turn 3, is out of nappies (at least during the day). And what is more, it was all done with the efficient management style that befitting parents who have been through this twice before.
Regular readers may recall that we have dealt with the strategic behaviour of Child No.1 and the dis-interest and the well-meaning gaming of Child No.2. Those were quite a work-out. So when it came to Child No.3 we adopted a strategy, ruthless efficient in its application and very light in terms of taxing our own energy: we outsourced the whole deal.
Now, by outsourcing, I don't mean that we just sent our daughter away to some service and then they delivered her back ready to go. Those, apparently, exist for dogs and I won't pretend that we wouldn't have availed ourselves of a human service had it existed. But it does not. Instead, we relied on her carers at child care to handle the entire exercise. They initiated toilet training, encouraged our daughter and eventually succeeded well before we did much at all at home. All we were left to do was to set her straight at home which, suffice to say, is not too hard once she had revealed her abilities to the wider community.
Child care is the perfect place for all this. First of all, the carers there have as much, if not more, incentives as we do to get children trained. They change more nappies and also have to potentially deal with them for years to come. They have no desired for a 'slow to train' child. Of course, our son had to leave their capable hands before he was done and was to move to a pre-school that required a trained kid. Suffice it to say, that dampened incentives somewhat. But give child care a time horizon with another 1000 nappy changes and we have a tight alignment of interests.
Second, and this goes without saying, they have seen it all. They are simply more capable in terms of knowing the signs, assessing readiness and doing all of the other crap (literally) that first time parents think but cannot do.
Finally, the children have peers. Now the power of peer pressure is something that can lead to good and evil. The evil usually becomes apparently as your child follows others to leap off a several metre high structure or starts sucking noodles up their noses. But the good can be equally as powerful. With all the other kids successfully going to the toilet, there is intense pressure to join in and do so in a meaningful way. Your child wants to get the same cheers their friends are getting for demonstrated activity. And they don't want to have themselves tended for to clean a soiled nappy up.
Even wearing a nappy can be socially difficult. A friend's three year old son, who wasn't in lots of child care, shed himself of a nappy when he was made fun of by a random older kid in a playground. Of course, in that instance, that meant no night-time nappy and a few difficulties for his parents as a consequence of that.
For our daughter, she shed herself of a nappy at child care. Indeed, in the early part of it, she would convince some of the more part-time carers that she didn't wear a nappy; although apparently those earlier forays met with unfortunate results. But it continued later on too. I remember being informed, having collected her and driven her half the way home that, "I don't have a nappy on." Being on the freeway there was not much I could do. So I went with it and all was well.
I won't pretend that we were totally free of obligation. For a while, there was a distinct difference between her behaviours at home and elsewhere. But once we got on the program, deployed a few incentives, we were done in a matter of days.
So the moral of our story is pretty simple. When you have (virtually) once-off activities for which you have no competence to manage, you should outsource it to those who deal with it regularly and also have plenty of experience. The end result is pretty much the same but with less stress, lower pressure and cleaner carpets.
Regular readers may recall that we have dealt with the strategic behaviour of Child No.1 and the dis-interest and the well-meaning gaming of Child No.2. Those were quite a work-out. So when it came to Child No.3 we adopted a strategy, ruthless efficient in its application and very light in terms of taxing our own energy: we outsourced the whole deal.
Now, by outsourcing, I don't mean that we just sent our daughter away to some service and then they delivered her back ready to go. Those, apparently, exist for dogs and I won't pretend that we wouldn't have availed ourselves of a human service had it existed. But it does not. Instead, we relied on her carers at child care to handle the entire exercise. They initiated toilet training, encouraged our daughter and eventually succeeded well before we did much at all at home. All we were left to do was to set her straight at home which, suffice to say, is not too hard once she had revealed her abilities to the wider community.
Child care is the perfect place for all this. First of all, the carers there have as much, if not more, incentives as we do to get children trained. They change more nappies and also have to potentially deal with them for years to come. They have no desired for a 'slow to train' child. Of course, our son had to leave their capable hands before he was done and was to move to a pre-school that required a trained kid. Suffice it to say, that dampened incentives somewhat. But give child care a time horizon with another 1000 nappy changes and we have a tight alignment of interests.
Second, and this goes without saying, they have seen it all. They are simply more capable in terms of knowing the signs, assessing readiness and doing all of the other crap (literally) that first time parents think but cannot do.
Finally, the children have peers. Now the power of peer pressure is something that can lead to good and evil. The evil usually becomes apparently as your child follows others to leap off a several metre high structure or starts sucking noodles up their noses. But the good can be equally as powerful. With all the other kids successfully going to the toilet, there is intense pressure to join in and do so in a meaningful way. Your child wants to get the same cheers their friends are getting for demonstrated activity. And they don't want to have themselves tended for to clean a soiled nappy up.
Even wearing a nappy can be socially difficult. A friend's three year old son, who wasn't in lots of child care, shed himself of a nappy when he was made fun of by a random older kid in a playground. Of course, in that instance, that meant no night-time nappy and a few difficulties for his parents as a consequence of that.
For our daughter, she shed herself of a nappy at child care. Indeed, in the early part of it, she would convince some of the more part-time carers that she didn't wear a nappy; although apparently those earlier forays met with unfortunate results. But it continued later on too. I remember being informed, having collected her and driven her half the way home that, "I don't have a nappy on." Being on the freeway there was not much I could do. So I went with it and all was well.
I won't pretend that we were totally free of obligation. For a while, there was a distinct difference between her behaviours at home and elsewhere. But once we got on the program, deployed a few incentives, we were done in a matter of days.
So the moral of our story is pretty simple. When you have (virtually) once-off activities for which you have no competence to manage, you should outsource it to those who deal with it regularly and also have plenty of experience. The end result is pretty much the same but with less stress, lower pressure and cleaner carpets.
Real versus virtual danger
These days we read time and time again of how video games are dangerous. Shoot them up games encouraging them to think violent thoughts. Car racing games make them into reckless drivers. Police games encourage drug trafficking. Space shooting games fostering anti-alien prejudices. So this holidays I bought my 8 year old daughter, The Dangerous Book for Boys, for some good old-fashioned values.
Suffice it to say, in this iPod generation, that book was an incredible hit. She will not let it leave her possession. It goes everywhere and is read all of the time. She will happily recite the blurb on the back cover by memory to anyone who asks:
But that is not all. It teaches you about life. For instance, in the entry "Girls" (which is a whole page), there is a list of 8 points of advice including the critical message to "be careful about humour" limiting yourself to one joke followed by silence. You just can't buy that kind of information.
So how does it stack up relative to those damned computer games? Pretty well. The entries with the biggest hits were those that compelled activity. Within minutes "the greatest paper airplane ever" whizzed by. But then came the pleas for the base equipment for larger projects. So there were calls to make a bow and arrow, slingshot, box car, crystals (literally drugs I think), battery (!), skin tanning (including hunting the game) and tripwires. Unlike those computer games where there is still debate about whether they lead to poor behaviour, there is no doubt with this stuff. In this book, there is direct and unequivocal linkage between the playtime activity and the potentially criminal behaviour. With computer games, you still need a gun to be violent. But this stuff tells you how to make a weapon. Things were just clearer in the olden days and when it comes down to it, the kids know when they are just getting virtual stuff as opposed to the real deal.
Anyhow, if you would like to order this book, click on the link below. I can't write anymore as I need to extract a poison dart from a younger brother before he collapses (again)! Good to be an involved parent again rather than rely on the electronic babysitter.
Suffice it to say, in this iPod generation, that book was an incredible hit. She will not let it leave her possession. It goes everywhere and is read all of the time. She will happily recite the blurb on the back cover by memory to anyone who asks:
Recapture Sunday afternoons and long summer days. The perfect book for every boy from eight to eighty.And so what does this book have in it that was so instantly engrossing? Well, to say it lacks a theme is an under-statement. It is just a random set of entrys (not even alphabetically ordered) with titles such as "Fossils," "The Laws of Football," "Dinosaurs," "How to play poker," "The Origin of Words" and "The Patron Saints of Britain." I mean how many 8 year olds do you know who aren't fascinated by St David of Wales and his heroic efforts to establish churches and monastries in the 500s?
But that is not all. It teaches you about life. For instance, in the entry "Girls" (which is a whole page), there is a list of 8 points of advice including the critical message to "be careful about humour" limiting yourself to one joke followed by silence. You just can't buy that kind of information.
So how does it stack up relative to those damned computer games? Pretty well. The entries with the biggest hits were those that compelled activity. Within minutes "the greatest paper airplane ever" whizzed by. But then came the pleas for the base equipment for larger projects. So there were calls to make a bow and arrow, slingshot, box car, crystals (literally drugs I think), battery (!), skin tanning (including hunting the game) and tripwires. Unlike those computer games where there is still debate about whether they lead to poor behaviour, there is no doubt with this stuff. In this book, there is direct and unequivocal linkage between the playtime activity and the potentially criminal behaviour. With computer games, you still need a gun to be violent. But this stuff tells you how to make a weapon. Things were just clearer in the olden days and when it comes down to it, the kids know when they are just getting virtual stuff as opposed to the real deal.
Anyhow, if you would like to order this book, click on the link below. I can't write anymore as I need to extract a poison dart from a younger brother before he collapses (again)! Good to be an involved parent again rather than rely on the electronic babysitter.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Week 7: Pageant of the Transmundane
Ah, it is good to be back on the wagon once again giving out an award.
And this time around, it was a rather nifty submission from someone who had been a bridesmaid once or twice here, but had never secured an award for themselves... and it really ups the ante, which is something I appreciate in an entry.
You see, Matt Finarelli from Deglazed was left home alone by his wife and he decided to get himself a little tattoo of a wonderful delicious animal, a tattoo that was in part inspired by an episode of the Simpsons entitled "Lisa the Vegetarian", so it is a nice two for one deal. And the fact that he now has a permanent reminder of his love of cooking and the Simpsons on his body, well, I have to recognize that. It is a truly marvelous entry.
And what better way to celebrate this momentous win but with an image from that very same episode? I can't think of one, so here it is... Homer Simpson with a pig ready for roasting just moments before it is taken away from him. It is a delight to give this Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award to Matt for the pain he caused himself in the pursuit of a Simpsonian and Food-related goal. Huzzah!
Congrats Matt on winning your first award here. May it not be the last.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
And this time around, it was a rather nifty submission from someone who had been a bridesmaid once or twice here, but had never secured an award for themselves... and it really ups the ante, which is something I appreciate in an entry.
You see, Matt Finarelli from Deglazed was left home alone by his wife and he decided to get himself a little tattoo of a wonderful delicious animal, a tattoo that was in part inspired by an episode of the Simpsons entitled "Lisa the Vegetarian", so it is a nice two for one deal. And the fact that he now has a permanent reminder of his love of cooking and the Simpsons on his body, well, I have to recognize that. It is a truly marvelous entry.
And what better way to celebrate this momentous win but with an image from that very same episode? I can't think of one, so here it is... Homer Simpson with a pig ready for roasting just moments before it is taken away from him. It is a delight to give this Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award to Matt for the pain he caused himself in the pursuit of a Simpsonian and Food-related goal. Huzzah!
Congrats Matt on winning your first award here. May it not be the last.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
Tags:
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The Best Conan/Walker, Texas Ranger segment ever!
I almost posted an embedded version of the new Grand Theft Auto IV trailer tonight, btu I saw something else which caught my attention.
I have to say this is one of the funniest Walker, Texas Ranger segments I've ever seen on Conan O'Brien.
The funniest set of clips ever in one of these segments, especially #3. It was just so perfect. Almost makes me want to watch Walker in reruns or something.
I have to say this is one of the funniest Walker, Texas Ranger segments I've ever seen on Conan O'Brien.
The funniest set of clips ever in one of these segments, especially #3. It was just so perfect. Almost makes me want to watch Walker in reruns or something.
Tags:
So Bad It's Good? Not for Me!
I've been playing with Flixster recently, just as I played around with Yahoo! Movies recommendations a few years ago, and I've come to a foregone conclusion.
I have never gotten the appeal of watching movies whose only claim to fame is they are so bad they're good. Yes, I lionized some pretty mediocre movies in the past, but at least there was always some aspect of those films that I could rave about.
Yes, I admit it is a little bit fun to rip on a bad movie with your friends Mystery Science Theatre 3000 style, but really, I'd rather be watching a better movie. I've had people try to convince me to watch horrible, horrible movies just for the sake of ripping on them, and I've always politely but firmly said no (and in some cases, I wasn't so polite).
I have absolutely no patience for a completely shitty movie. None.
Life it too short to watch Ed Wood films and ultra-low budget, direct to video schlock. And the Lloyd Kaufman legacy... yeah, I am not going there. I don't want to watch a movie that unintentionally looks like it was the work of Bobby Bowfinger. I have better things to do, really. And I will say this: I appreciate places like the Agony Booth taking a hit for me so I don't have to.
And I can hear some of you saying out there, "But Matt, you have demonstrated a love of grindhouse cinema." To you, I have only this to say: there is a huge difference between say Thriller or Shaft and Redneck Zombies or Shark Attack 3.
And if you are trying to sell me on a questionable movie, don't ever use the word campy... because every time someone said I would like a movie because it is campy has in essence lied to me. I had a friend (emphasis on HAD) who tried to get me to watch a lot of really bad movies under the guise that they were campy... and they all sucked. I mean, they were horrific. Calling a movie campy is a kiss of death for me.
I know I like some crappy movies, but seriously, so bad it is good is a phenomenon I think I will never understand.
I have never gotten the appeal of watching movies whose only claim to fame is they are so bad they're good. Yes, I lionized some pretty mediocre movies in the past, but at least there was always some aspect of those films that I could rave about.
Yes, I admit it is a little bit fun to rip on a bad movie with your friends Mystery Science Theatre 3000 style, but really, I'd rather be watching a better movie. I've had people try to convince me to watch horrible, horrible movies just for the sake of ripping on them, and I've always politely but firmly said no (and in some cases, I wasn't so polite).
I have absolutely no patience for a completely shitty movie. None.
Life it too short to watch Ed Wood films and ultra-low budget, direct to video schlock. And the Lloyd Kaufman legacy... yeah, I am not going there. I don't want to watch a movie that unintentionally looks like it was the work of Bobby Bowfinger. I have better things to do, really. And I will say this: I appreciate places like the Agony Booth taking a hit for me so I don't have to.
And I can hear some of you saying out there, "But Matt, you have demonstrated a love of grindhouse cinema." To you, I have only this to say: there is a huge difference between say Thriller or Shaft and Redneck Zombies or Shark Attack 3.
And if you are trying to sell me on a questionable movie, don't ever use the word campy... because every time someone said I would like a movie because it is campy has in essence lied to me. I had a friend (emphasis on HAD) who tried to get me to watch a lot of really bad movies under the guise that they were campy... and they all sucked. I mean, they were horrific. Calling a movie campy is a kiss of death for me.
I know I like some crappy movies, but seriously, so bad it is good is a phenomenon I think I will never understand.
Tags:
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Remembering Series 7: The Contenders
As I promised earlier in the week, I am writing about another movie that has stayed with me over the years. If you are unfamiliar with the premise of Series 7: The Contenders it is basically reality show programming a la The World's Most Dangerous Game meeting Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, and through that mixture of elements, it becomes a very well-constructed satire of our society's fixation with reality game shows.
The game begins with 5 people being chosen at "random" in a town and being forced to kill each other(along a sixth contestant, the survivor of the last series), and each contestant is followed by a camera crew.
Brooke Smith plays the two-time reigning champion of The Contenders, Dawn Lagarto, an eight month pregnant single mother who just needs to be the last person standing in Series 7 to gain her freedom.
The snag for her is the site of her potential final battle on the show is Newbury, Connecticut the town she grew up in and finally left after feeling alienated. And like other reality shows, for the sake of drama, her high school sweetheart, Jeffery Norman (Glenn Fitzgerald), a man who is now dying of testicular cancer, is one of the other contestants.
The other four contestants are a nice cross-section of American society: a honor student, a nurse, a half-insane retiree and an unemployed laborer, and each has their own quirks and flaws, and they are supposed to be real people being thrown into the gristmill for public consumption, and dealing with those circumstances the best they can.
The movie is presented like one of those recap shows reality show producers put together for the end of a season, and Arrested Development's Will Arnett does a masterful job of narrating the whole sorted affair in the same style as his real life counterparts. Granted, if the show was real, it would likely be on Showtime or HBO because of the language, because it is laced with profanity.
Released in early 2001, it is an oddly prescient film about the excesses of reality show production: the shaping, the creation of false drama and putting people into uncomfortable and life-threatening situations for entertainment. Can anyone claim that there is a reality show that isn't guilty of one of those deeds?
And the funny thing is, director Daniel Minahan originally pitched the idea as a fictionalized weekly reality show. I don't think we will be seeing the hunting of humans on television any time soon, but it seems like every time the reality show bucket has run empty, someone finds a concept for a new one that is just different enough to be attention getting.
And considering he has now gone on to direct some of the most acclaimed television series(Deadwood, Big Love, Six Feet Under) since Series 7, I think he could have ran with that original concept all the way to the bank.
Tags:
My Own Little Movie Meme: Your ideals
I do a few memes, it is true, but I've always found that making up something new for these kinds of things is also fun. So I made a movie meme.
Which Movie Character does your own life eerily parallel?
I don't toke up, but still, living the life of El Duderino Lebowski over here.
Your best friend is best represented by which character:
Walter Sobchak.... totally serious. Even if I wasn't his Dudeness, he'd still be Walter Sobchak.
Which Movie Character would you want to be?
Danny Ocean... he good looking, rich, and a great thief...
Which movie reality would you like to exist in as a secondary or minor character?
Easy... Star Trek... just because of the replicators and the holodecks and the painless medicine. I know it is technically a tv show, but they made Next Gen movies, so I am taking it.
Which movie represents your worst nightmare?
Alien. Isolation + something huge and non-human trying to kill... shudder. The research station in The Thing also comes to mind for the same reasons.
Where would you like to vacation in the movies?
Fhloston Paradise from The Fifth Element
Your movie car:
The cars from Demolition Man... Self-driving, the foam accident material, and a nice rate of acceleration. I almost said the delorean from Back to the Future, but I thought better of it.
Your movie pad:
I would have liked to have had an apartment like Ed Norton's in Fight Club(yes, it makes me a traitor to my generation, I know).
Fictional Movie or TV show from within a movie you'd watch:
I'd watch Celebrity Mud Wrestling from UHF... yessirree bob I would.
So those are my answers to this little meme of movie goodness... If anyone else wants to do it, feel free, but I am not making this one which has obligations...
Which Movie Character does your own life eerily parallel?
I don't toke up, but still, living the life of El Duderino Lebowski over here.
Your best friend is best represented by which character:
Walter Sobchak.... totally serious. Even if I wasn't his Dudeness, he'd still be Walter Sobchak.
Which Movie Character would you want to be?
Danny Ocean... he good looking, rich, and a great thief...
Which movie reality would you like to exist in as a secondary or minor character?
Easy... Star Trek... just because of the replicators and the holodecks and the painless medicine. I know it is technically a tv show, but they made Next Gen movies, so I am taking it.
Which movie represents your worst nightmare?
Alien. Isolation + something huge and non-human trying to kill... shudder. The research station in The Thing also comes to mind for the same reasons.
Where would you like to vacation in the movies?
Fhloston Paradise from The Fifth Element
Your movie car:
The cars from Demolition Man... Self-driving, the foam accident material, and a nice rate of acceleration. I almost said the delorean from Back to the Future, but I thought better of it.
Your movie pad:
I would have liked to have had an apartment like Ed Norton's in Fight Club(yes, it makes me a traitor to my generation, I know).
Fictional Movie or TV show from within a movie you'd watch:
I'd watch Celebrity Mud Wrestling from UHF... yessirree bob I would.
So those are my answers to this little meme of movie goodness... If anyone else wants to do it, feel free, but I am not making this one which has obligations...
Tags:
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Now I understand Star Wars Fans
I read an interesting article at JiveMagazine about the peculiar nature of Star Wars fans.
Andrey Summers was trying to explain his fixation with the Star Wars series to his girlfriend when he came to a realization: Star Wars fans hate Star Wars
I am trying to think of another group of fans that loves to hate the thing they are into... to the point of pathological neurosis. I mean, the theory makes total sense to me now.
I mean, I do enjoy hating things, but usually the things I pick apart aren't the same things I am a fan of.
As someone who exists outside the Star Wars fan community, it is a stunning revelation. Do the symptoms sound familiar to any one of you in the non-gaming community(because let's face it, gamers are the original player haters ball).
Andrey Summers was trying to explain his fixation with the Star Wars series to his girlfriend when he came to a realization: Star Wars fans hate Star Wars
I am trying to think of another group of fans that loves to hate the thing they are into... to the point of pathological neurosis. I mean, the theory makes total sense to me now.
I mean, I do enjoy hating things, but usually the things I pick apart aren't the same things I am a fan of.
As someone who exists outside the Star Wars fan community, it is a stunning revelation. Do the symptoms sound familiar to any one of you in the non-gaming community(because let's face it, gamers are the original player haters ball).
Tags:
Monday, June 25, 2007
In Praise of Merritt Wever
Basically there is only one reason why I continue to watch the waning episodes of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip: Merritt Wever who plays Suzanne, Matt Albie's personal assistant.
If you don't recognize her name, don't worry. I have a feeling that in the next few years, her name is going to be on a lot of lips.
She is an actress whose career I had followed almost inadvertently before Studio 60, and now looking back on it, I am surprised that I didn't follow it with a more intense interest.
When I first saw her on Studio 60, I knew that I had seen her before, and so I looked her up on the IMDB and like I said above, I had seen a LOT of the things she was in. But a particular project stood out. She was young Lindsay Berns in Series 7: The Contenders(which I will probably write a remembering piece about sooner rather than later), and I love that movie, but because of an unfortunate tape accident, I hadn't seen it in years.
But it turns out that she was in Signs in a small role I really enjoyed(probably the only part in that entire movie I liked). And then there is that gathering of child actresses(Kirsten Dunst, Gaby Hoffman, Rachael Leigh Cook) emerging into young adulthood that was Strike! (Yes, I've seen Strike! a few times, I admit it), and she ably held her own in the company of her young peers. And there were so many other smaller roles that she has taken over the past decade that now I keep seeing her all over the place.
She hasn't really had top billing in any of her projects yet, but from what I've read, her career as a stage actress is also in bloom, and it reminded me of something.
Back in the mid-1990's, I followed the career of a young comedian / performance artist who was trying to make a name for herself in Hollywood, and I'd see her appear deep down in the credits of a movie, like Sunset Strip, Magnolia, Road Trip or Dude, Where's My Car and various recurring roles on a few sitcoms and then, she got a part on a dramatic series and by her 4th season on the show, she was the second billed performer. I am of course talking about Mary Lynn Rajskub, and I have a feeling that one solid part is going to bring Merritt Wever into the hearts of America in the next few years as well.
She has three movies coming out this year, and I am probably going to see them all, at least on DVD. I wish her much luck on her future thespianic endeavours.
If you don't recognize her name, don't worry. I have a feeling that in the next few years, her name is going to be on a lot of lips.
She is an actress whose career I had followed almost inadvertently before Studio 60, and now looking back on it, I am surprised that I didn't follow it with a more intense interest.
When I first saw her on Studio 60, I knew that I had seen her before, and so I looked her up on the IMDB and like I said above, I had seen a LOT of the things she was in. But a particular project stood out. She was young Lindsay Berns in Series 7: The Contenders(which I will probably write a remembering piece about sooner rather than later), and I love that movie, but because of an unfortunate tape accident, I hadn't seen it in years.
But it turns out that she was in Signs in a small role I really enjoyed(probably the only part in that entire movie I liked). And then there is that gathering of child actresses(Kirsten Dunst, Gaby Hoffman, Rachael Leigh Cook) emerging into young adulthood that was Strike! (Yes, I've seen Strike! a few times, I admit it), and she ably held her own in the company of her young peers. And there were so many other smaller roles that she has taken over the past decade that now I keep seeing her all over the place.
She hasn't really had top billing in any of her projects yet, but from what I've read, her career as a stage actress is also in bloom, and it reminded me of something.
Back in the mid-1990's, I followed the career of a young comedian / performance artist who was trying to make a name for herself in Hollywood, and I'd see her appear deep down in the credits of a movie, like Sunset Strip, Magnolia, Road Trip or Dude, Where's My Car and various recurring roles on a few sitcoms and then, she got a part on a dramatic series and by her 4th season on the show, she was the second billed performer. I am of course talking about Mary Lynn Rajskub, and I have a feeling that one solid part is going to bring Merritt Wever into the hearts of America in the next few years as well.
She has three movies coming out this year, and I am probably going to see them all, at least on DVD. I wish her much luck on her future thespianic endeavours.
Tags:
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Sunday Night Video: Bad Elf
It isn't even July yet, but I just had to show you all this funny Elf remix.
I certainly got a laugh out of it.
I certainly got a laugh out of it.
Tags:
Saturday, June 23, 2007
The PCSC deliberating its second case
The Court is currently deliberating the following question:
In the current media environment, are radio personalities being held to a different and tougher standard than their peers in print and on television?
We hope to render a decision on said question on June 27th.
In the current media environment, are radio personalities being held to a different and tougher standard than their peers in print and on television?
We hope to render a decision on said question on June 27th.
Tags:
Week 6: Pageant of the Transmundane
Well, this is a first.
The party that would have won this week's contest removed the post that would have garnered them Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award. Absolutely no question about it, and as I discovered that fact as I went to start writing the post for the ceremony.
Alas, this left me in quite a pickle, but since that post was what I really wanted to reward, I feel it is prudent to not award the prize this week.
I am officially calling a writ of boys will be boys.
Sorry for any disappointment this may cause. But if it is any consolation, there is always... oh, I don't know, a rodent with some talent and a soundtrack to get things going for the weekend.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
The party that would have won this week's contest removed the post that would have garnered them Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award. Absolutely no question about it, and as I discovered that fact as I went to start writing the post for the ceremony.
Alas, this left me in quite a pickle, but since that post was what I really wanted to reward, I feel it is prudent to not award the prize this week.
I am officially calling a writ of boys will be boys.
Sorry for any disappointment this may cause. But if it is any consolation, there is always... oh, I don't know, a rodent with some talent and a soundtrack to get things going for the weekend.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
Tags:
Friday, June 22, 2007
Holding back
My daughter had a swimming "race" night last night. This is a monthly event at her swimming school whereby the kids are timed and get a ribbon if they get their PB or personal best. This was my daughter's first (well second but last year they forgot to record her times) and so she would get a ribbon anyway.
She swam all of her strokes (at 25m and 50m) but surprisingly slowly. I thought she was just tired. But in the 25m races she would bound back up to the starting end of the pool. So something didn't add up.
When she came out, I asked her how she felt about it all.
"Good."
"But didn't you think you were a little slower than usual."
"Oh that is true. I wanted a slow time."
"Why?"
"Well, then I wont have as much to beat next month and can get a PB."
So we can now add her to the list of the many who have discovered the ratchet effect. This is the issue of when incentives are created to hold back because people are worried about having to put too much effort in in the future. When you want a ribbon ever month, it is best not to fall in the trap of over-performance. One good month and you pay for it forever. My daughter realised that and so hardly felt that she came in last. Another reason for swimming races where it depends on where you come in the pack.
She swam all of her strokes (at 25m and 50m) but surprisingly slowly. I thought she was just tired. But in the 25m races she would bound back up to the starting end of the pool. So something didn't add up.
When she came out, I asked her how she felt about it all.
"Good."
"But didn't you think you were a little slower than usual."
"Oh that is true. I wanted a slow time."
"Why?"
"Well, then I wont have as much to beat next month and can get a PB."
So we can now add her to the list of the many who have discovered the ratchet effect. This is the issue of when incentives are created to hold back because people are worried about having to put too much effort in in the future. When you want a ribbon ever month, it is best not to fall in the trap of over-performance. One good month and you pay for it forever. My daughter realised that and so hardly felt that she came in last. Another reason for swimming races where it depends on where you come in the pack.
Movies and game distribution: A Double Standard
When I wrote yesterday's article about the Manhunt franchise, I did not know that the second part of that series had been effectively banned for the Wii and Playstation 2 because both Sony and Nintendo have stated that they will not license a game that is AO for their respective consoles.
And then I was reading an article in Entertainment Weekly about how weak the Restricted rating is, because a brutal movie like Hostel II received an R rating, meaning that a parent or guardian could take their kid to see that film, when in years' past, the current cut would have most likely been the commercially suicidal NC-17(but much less severe than AO for games which comprise only 23 titles, 21 of which are pornographic).
When the two stories came together, I noticed a stunning and incredibly hypocritical parallel that I think is worth exploring in regards to home entertainment.
Sony says they won't license Rockstar's Manhunt 2 because of the AO designation, and yet, the company releases any number of Restricted rated movies for the DVD market with additional footage as Unrated releases. And as Sony is also the company that released and marketed Hostel series amongst, and released those titles for consumption. How much do you want to bet that if I stuck a copy of that movie into my PS2, it would play?
And if Sony is so concerned about what adults play on their consoles(as the average age of US video game players is 33), why would they allow their unrated DVD's play on the hardware they control? And why would they release Hostel in Blu-Ray format?
I think Dan Zuccarelli from the BBPS really nailed the point when he said of the issue:
Given the fact that console game makers do not have the luxury of releasing unrated games, this unequitable arrangement comes into further contrast. The MPAA allows film companies to release titles as unrated as DVD's if they are totally forthcoming about them being unrated, and that is a loophole that these companies use to avoid the stigma and financial consequences of releasing those movies as NC-17, because like many theatres, a lot of the major players in the rental business like Blockbuster have made a corporate policy stating they will not distribute those movies. And I have a feeling that even if the ESRB policy changed to allow unrated titles, retailers would not give games the same fair shake that movies receive with the same status. And since retailers routinely sell movies and games in the same department, this differentiation is even more pronounced.
I am a legal adult(as are 69% or more of gamers) and I am capable of making my own choices, and this increasingly apparent double standard is becoming disturbing, and on some level untenable. This issue is really going to come to a head sooner rather than later.
I would like to thank Sony, Nintendo and the ESRB for forcing me to defend something I had a hard time doing just a day ago.
Who will think of the children? A better question is, who will think of the rest of us?
And then I was reading an article in Entertainment Weekly about how weak the Restricted rating is, because a brutal movie like Hostel II received an R rating, meaning that a parent or guardian could take their kid to see that film, when in years' past, the current cut would have most likely been the commercially suicidal NC-17(but much less severe than AO for games which comprise only 23 titles, 21 of which are pornographic).
When the two stories came together, I noticed a stunning and incredibly hypocritical parallel that I think is worth exploring in regards to home entertainment.
Sony says they won't license Rockstar's Manhunt 2 because of the AO designation, and yet, the company releases any number of Restricted rated movies for the DVD market with additional footage as Unrated releases. And as Sony is also the company that released and marketed Hostel series amongst, and released those titles for consumption. How much do you want to bet that if I stuck a copy of that movie into my PS2, it would play?
And if Sony is so concerned about what adults play on their consoles(as the average age of US video game players is 33), why would they allow their unrated DVD's play on the hardware they control? And why would they release Hostel in Blu-Ray format?
I think Dan Zuccarelli from the BBPS really nailed the point when he said of the issue:
My being upset at Sony and Nintendo stems more from them [being] more than happy to play the game and release a game like this, but then take the high road when it gets the rating. Had the game, in the state it is now, gotten the M rating neither company would object to the content, they’d release it just like any other game.
Given the fact that console game makers do not have the luxury of releasing unrated games, this unequitable arrangement comes into further contrast. The MPAA allows film companies to release titles as unrated as DVD's if they are totally forthcoming about them being unrated, and that is a loophole that these companies use to avoid the stigma and financial consequences of releasing those movies as NC-17, because like many theatres, a lot of the major players in the rental business like Blockbuster have made a corporate policy stating they will not distribute those movies. And I have a feeling that even if the ESRB policy changed to allow unrated titles, retailers would not give games the same fair shake that movies receive with the same status. And since retailers routinely sell movies and games in the same department, this differentiation is even more pronounced.
I am a legal adult(as are 69% or more of gamers) and I am capable of making my own choices, and this increasingly apparent double standard is becoming disturbing, and on some level untenable. This issue is really going to come to a head sooner rather than later.
I would like to thank Sony, Nintendo and the ESRB for forcing me to defend something I had a hard time doing just a day ago.
Who will think of the children? A better question is, who will think of the rest of us?
Tags:
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Manhunt: The Game I've Never Defended
Long time readers know that I have often been an advocate of Rockstar Games and the Grand Theft Auto series in particular, going so far as to celebrate the Fourth of July as Grand Theft Auto Day, but there has always been a title I've had a hard time coming to grips with.
There has always been something about Manhunt that makes me uncomfortable. It is the title that to me is the hardest one to defend on artistic grounds, because to me, while the idea of playing an ultraviolent version of The Most Dangerous Game, the execution (and executions for that matter), is just so unrelentingly brutal and horrific that it totally puts me off the title.
And I know titles like Soldier of Fortune are more gruesome from a technical standpoint, but because the gore accompanies a narrative where you are trying to stop terrorists. And, in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger in True Lies when asked if he had ever killed anyone: "Yeah, but they were all bad," the people you kill are basically the scum of the earth, and on some level, society is better off without them. Your enemies are Skinheads, militia-types and the criminally insane, and if you don't kill them, they will kill you.
Yes, there is some comment on society, the media and what we are willing to pay money to see in the game, but unlike GTA, it is buried a little deeper both in terms of plotting and presentation, so it is harder to pick up on those jabs as you proceed through the macabre disintegrating world that is Carcer City(some have speculated that it is based on Detroit or Newark).
And unlike GTA, it is hard to distance yourself from the brutality of your missions by noticing the subtle and not so subtle homages to classic and contemporary genre movies. There is also the matter of free will, which is severely lacking in Manhunt... by design you have rather limited options when it comes to existing in the dank world you find yourself in. And because the ultimate goal for the people who put you into that situation is to make a snuff film from the footage of your trip through their urban hell, you are directed by the voice of Brian Cox, best known for his portrayal of Hannibal Lecter in Manhunter.
The whole thing leaves me feeling more than a little bit dirty.
With a sequel coming out early next month, I know that Rockstar is going to come under attack again from certain segments in the media... and I will likely not be one of the most vocal voices defending it.
Edit: Manhunt 2 has received an AO rating and both Sony and Nintendo have stated that they will not license the game for their respective consoles.
There has always been something about Manhunt that makes me uncomfortable. It is the title that to me is the hardest one to defend on artistic grounds, because to me, while the idea of playing an ultraviolent version of The Most Dangerous Game, the execution (and executions for that matter), is just so unrelentingly brutal and horrific that it totally puts me off the title.
And I know titles like Soldier of Fortune are more gruesome from a technical standpoint, but because the gore accompanies a narrative where you are trying to stop terrorists. And, in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger in True Lies when asked if he had ever killed anyone: "Yeah, but they were all bad," the people you kill are basically the scum of the earth, and on some level, society is better off without them. Your enemies are Skinheads, militia-types and the criminally insane, and if you don't kill them, they will kill you.
Yes, there is some comment on society, the media and what we are willing to pay money to see in the game, but unlike GTA, it is buried a little deeper both in terms of plotting and presentation, so it is harder to pick up on those jabs as you proceed through the macabre disintegrating world that is Carcer City(some have speculated that it is based on Detroit or Newark).
And unlike GTA, it is hard to distance yourself from the brutality of your missions by noticing the subtle and not so subtle homages to classic and contemporary genre movies. There is also the matter of free will, which is severely lacking in Manhunt... by design you have rather limited options when it comes to existing in the dank world you find yourself in. And because the ultimate goal for the people who put you into that situation is to make a snuff film from the footage of your trip through their urban hell, you are directed by the voice of Brian Cox, best known for his portrayal of Hannibal Lecter in Manhunter.
The whole thing leaves me feeling more than a little bit dirty.
With a sequel coming out early next month, I know that Rockstar is going to come under attack again from certain segments in the media... and I will likely not be one of the most vocal voices defending it.
Edit: Manhunt 2 has received an AO rating and both Sony and Nintendo have stated that they will not license the game for their respective consoles.
Tags:
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
When Two Potential Blockbusters Mash into each other...
...you get this delightful mix of the Simpsons and Live Free or Die Hard
Is it sad that I can identify all the episodes in that clip?
Is it sad that I can identify all the episodes in that clip?
Tags:
Rosie O'Donnell and the Price Is Right...
Bob Barker is one of the most beloved hosts in game show history(if you didn't work for him on the show at least), and now that he has decided to retire from The Price is Right, there are a few names that are being bandied about to replace him, but one in particular is getting the most attention.
I am of course talking about Rosie O'Donnell, who is lobbying for the job, and has received an endorsement from Mr. Barker himself.
Given Rosie's rather tempestuous recent history on television, I really wonder about that choice. I mean, a lot of people don't like her (myself included), and in the end, I think she would quite frankly bring the show down. I mean, it isn't The View where controversy is good for ratings... people watch The Price is Right because it is a comfortable experience, and with Rosie, well, I don't think it would be that anymore because her personal baggage would end up hurting the show.
Do I think she will get the job? No. But I am just putting these thoughts out there anyway because these are issues that the people in charge should think about. And a topic that is being brought up by other people in the pop culture world is that Rosie doesn't want to leave New York, and Freemantle doesn't want to move the show to NYC, so that could be a huge deal breaker.
So, you know who I'd bring in for a season while the producers figure out a more permanent solution?
Betty White!
I mean, think about it: people like her, she has a great personality, she has loads of experience working on game shows including an Emmy as a host for Just Men!(which is a precursor to Street Smarts, and much like Bob Barker, she is a avid animal advocate. And her acting resume has left a positive impression on a lot of people.
To me, she would totally work as the host.
I am of course talking about Rosie O'Donnell, who is lobbying for the job, and has received an endorsement from Mr. Barker himself.
Given Rosie's rather tempestuous recent history on television, I really wonder about that choice. I mean, a lot of people don't like her (myself included), and in the end, I think she would quite frankly bring the show down. I mean, it isn't The View where controversy is good for ratings... people watch The Price is Right because it is a comfortable experience, and with Rosie, well, I don't think it would be that anymore because her personal baggage would end up hurting the show.
Do I think she will get the job? No. But I am just putting these thoughts out there anyway because these are issues that the people in charge should think about. And a topic that is being brought up by other people in the pop culture world is that Rosie doesn't want to leave New York, and Freemantle doesn't want to move the show to NYC, so that could be a huge deal breaker.
So, you know who I'd bring in for a season while the producers figure out a more permanent solution?
Betty White!
I mean, think about it: people like her, she has a great personality, she has loads of experience working on game shows including an Emmy as a host for Just Men!(which is a precursor to Street Smarts, and much like Bob Barker, she is a avid animal advocate. And her acting resume has left a positive impression on a lot of people.
To me, she would totally work as the host.
Tags:
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Movie Roles: What could have been...
Last night, I was reading an interesting little article on News.com.au about roles that other actors may have played which could have really changed the character of those movies.
I mean, we all know about Nick Nolte and Tom Selleck being people that the producers originally wanted for Harrison Ford's two most iconic roles(Han Solo and Indiana Jones respectively), and there are a few other really public actor changes that are common knowledge now.
Some of the weird ones:
Independent of the article yesterday, I was having a discussion over at Burbanked and I found out something that really messed with my mind. Milos Forman wanted Bill Murray for the title role in the People vs. Larry Flynt. Now, there are a lot of perfectly valid switches people can make, it is true, but I have a really hard time imagining Bill Murray playing that role. And then I read that Tom Hanks was also considered for that role and now the back of my skull is slowly sliding down the wall behind me because that both blows my mind and provides me with an image that just isn't right.
I am also trying to imagine Christopher Reeve as Jack Cotton in Romancing the Stone... he didn't seem to have the roguish charms of Michael Douglas.
And Robert Redford or Burt Reynolds as Michael Corleone in the Godfather... WTF?!?
John Travolta as Forrest Gump: Well, I know he is dumb enough to make that believable, but man, there is no way I could like him in that role. *shudder*
Or Jennifer Love Hewitt/Melissa Joan Hart as the titular Lolita in Adrian Lyne's adaptation of that book. Somehow I think either of those actresses would have had an entirely different career if they had been given the role (and Natalie Portman turned the role down because of the response to her earlier sexually charged work in Leon/The Professional, and I have a feeling that she wouldn't have played Amidala)
Things I could have totally seen:
Jon Voight as Superman. I mean, he had the clean cut looks back then, the acting chops, and a little bit more marquee value than Reeve.
Stephen Baldwin and Halle Berry in Speed. I think that could have totally worked.
Tim Curry as the Joker in Tim Burton's Batman: This may be the most controversial of my picks, but I think there is a subtle insanity that Curry could have worked into that role. And I can see him doing a huge Joker smile as I type this.
Burt Reynolds in Soapdish: I like Kevin Kline, I really do, but the thought of Sally Field and Burt Reynolds playing former lovers who have to work together again on a Soap Opera would have been exceptional. Unfortunately, Loni Anderson convinced Burt that the only reason they wanted him was so they could make a laughingstock of him, so he didn't do the movie... and because of massive reshoots the movie required, Kevin Kline was then forced to pull out of the role of Peter Pan in Hook, which would have been another great bit of casting.
The greatest DOH! moment from the list to me:
Keanu Reeves was in Heat, but Val Kilmer was able to find the time in his Batman Forever schedule to take the part. Before he got the part in Batman however, he was scheduled to start filming an adaptation of a William Gibson short story Johnny Mnemonic, and there was suddenly an opening in that movie... which Keanu Reeves stepped into... and if you've seen that movie, wow... that is quite a demotion. I actually feel bad about that one.
I mean, we all know about Nick Nolte and Tom Selleck being people that the producers originally wanted for Harrison Ford's two most iconic roles(Han Solo and Indiana Jones respectively), and there are a few other really public actor changes that are common knowledge now.
Some of the weird ones:
Independent of the article yesterday, I was having a discussion over at Burbanked and I found out something that really messed with my mind. Milos Forman wanted Bill Murray for the title role in the People vs. Larry Flynt. Now, there are a lot of perfectly valid switches people can make, it is true, but I have a really hard time imagining Bill Murray playing that role. And then I read that Tom Hanks was also considered for that role and now the back of my skull is slowly sliding down the wall behind me because that both blows my mind and provides me with an image that just isn't right.
I am also trying to imagine Christopher Reeve as Jack Cotton in Romancing the Stone... he didn't seem to have the roguish charms of Michael Douglas.
And Robert Redford or Burt Reynolds as Michael Corleone in the Godfather... WTF?!?
John Travolta as Forrest Gump: Well, I know he is dumb enough to make that believable, but man, there is no way I could like him in that role. *shudder*
Or Jennifer Love Hewitt/Melissa Joan Hart as the titular Lolita in Adrian Lyne's adaptation of that book. Somehow I think either of those actresses would have had an entirely different career if they had been given the role (and Natalie Portman turned the role down because of the response to her earlier sexually charged work in Leon/The Professional, and I have a feeling that she wouldn't have played Amidala)
Things I could have totally seen:
Jon Voight as Superman. I mean, he had the clean cut looks back then, the acting chops, and a little bit more marquee value than Reeve.
Stephen Baldwin and Halle Berry in Speed. I think that could have totally worked.
Tim Curry as the Joker in Tim Burton's Batman: This may be the most controversial of my picks, but I think there is a subtle insanity that Curry could have worked into that role. And I can see him doing a huge Joker smile as I type this.
Burt Reynolds in Soapdish: I like Kevin Kline, I really do, but the thought of Sally Field and Burt Reynolds playing former lovers who have to work together again on a Soap Opera would have been exceptional. Unfortunately, Loni Anderson convinced Burt that the only reason they wanted him was so they could make a laughingstock of him, so he didn't do the movie... and because of massive reshoots the movie required, Kevin Kline was then forced to pull out of the role of Peter Pan in Hook, which would have been another great bit of casting.
The greatest DOH! moment from the list to me:
Keanu Reeves was in Heat, but Val Kilmer was able to find the time in his Batman Forever schedule to take the part. Before he got the part in Batman however, he was scheduled to start filming an adaptation of a William Gibson short story Johnny Mnemonic, and there was suddenly an opening in that movie... which Keanu Reeves stepped into... and if you've seen that movie, wow... that is quite a demotion. I actually feel bad about that one.
Tags:
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Unsung Hero of the Pageant of the Transmundane
Whenever the arduous task of choosing a winner of the weekly Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award comes up, I am usually also faced with an equally difficult task: choosing the right image for that week's award. This is especially true when an particular Simpsons image would be the perfect complement to the entry in question.
Of course, it is sometimes difficult to find such an image, but one site has really helped me over the past 57 weeks, and I have been remiss because I have not mentioned them on my blog before.
Last Exit to Springfield, created by Adam Wolf in 1997 features an ungodly amount of screencaps from many episodes of the series, which has allowed me to find those moments that so suit a winning entry. And the domain is Lardlad... gotta love it!
Plus, looking at the screen caps and the other material gathered there brings back a lot of good memories for me, so I also have to thank him for that as well.
And as a sign of my immense respect for the work that Mr. Wolf has done, I am pleased to give him a token of my esteem: The Homer Simpson Transmundanity Hero award.
Without your hard work, the Homeys would have been a much less interesting award. Huzzah!
Of course, it is sometimes difficult to find such an image, but one site has really helped me over the past 57 weeks, and I have been remiss because I have not mentioned them on my blog before.
Last Exit to Springfield, created by Adam Wolf in 1997 features an ungodly amount of screencaps from many episodes of the series, which has allowed me to find those moments that so suit a winning entry. And the domain is Lardlad... gotta love it!
Plus, looking at the screen caps and the other material gathered there brings back a lot of good memories for me, so I also have to thank him for that as well.
And as a sign of my immense respect for the work that Mr. Wolf has done, I am pleased to give him a token of my esteem: The Homer Simpson Transmundanity Hero award.
Without your hard work, the Homeys would have been a much less interesting award. Huzzah!
Tags:
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Sunday Night Video: Weng Weng!
In the fine tradition of Little Superstar, there is Super Agent 00, played by the Filipino actor Weng Weng, the shortest actor to play a leading role in a movie at 2'9.
Now I didn't post this movie to mock the work of this impressive little fellow, but rather to celebrate it. It is pure awesomeness, and I want to pick up the two movies he was in, both as a James Bond fan(as they clearly "borrow" much from that series), and as someone who has as part of my cultural heritage the image of Verne Troyer beating the living crap out of Jake Busey after hiding in a cabinet on Shasta McNasty.
I've been watching other scenes available on Youtube, and I've enjoyed them all. Part of me thinks that in part Dr. Tran is a tweaking of Weng Weng.
Tags:
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The child chauffeur's dilemma
A problem for you ...
There are lots of annoying things about kids' parties. One of the biggest is that they get invited to them. What is more, the potential number of parties one child might get invited to in a year is related to but not limited by the number of children that happen to be in their class. Indeed, my belief is that the biggest cost of increasing class sizes is the lost weekend time due to all the extra parties.
So this weekend a, fortunately rare, event occurred. Two of our children had two parties each on the same day at the same times. Child No.1 had a party at 10:30am (seeing Shrek again) that was due to end at 1:45pm and she had another party (this time bowling) due to begin at 1:15pm and end at 3 or so. Child No.2 had a party beginning at 10:30am and ending at 12:30pm (at a park) and then another from 1pm until 3pm (video gaming or something). Child No.3 had no party but really needed a nap from 1-3pm.
Think you can solve this: well, I am not done yet. This would all be well and good if we were at the same place for all this. But of course not. Without going into the details, Child No.2's first party was at location A which was 20km from Child No.1's first party at location B. Child No.2 then had a party at location B while Child No.1's second party was at Location B (sort of) in terms of parking but actually half a kilometer a way by foot.
But even that is complicated so to plan at least the location side of things out I did a mash-up in Google Maps (here is the link in case you are interested). Suffice it to say, there were real issues here. Our children's mother suggested the problem was "np-incomplete." I said, "you think!"
Nonetheless, there needed to be a plan and so one came. Clearly, I could not deposit both children at their desired Party 1's at 10:30am as they were 20km apart. We could use the other adult but instead tried to broker a deal with another parent who had a child going to both Child No.2's birthdays. The plan was this: I would take both children with me and head out from home at 9:45am. We would deposit Child No.2 at friend's house at 10am (also approximately marked on the map). Sadly, this was close to his party and 20km or so from Child No.1's first party. I would then drive Child No.1 to her first party and return home. So far so good.
Now you might think that next part of the plan would involve the other parent ferrying Child No.2 and friend to the next party. Sadly no. As I was going to have to be at the location for that party in order to transfer Child No.1 between parties there, it seemed better if I did that transfer.
So you might ask: why not find a parent to transfer Child No.1 between her two parties? That would have freed up the middle of the day. Well, it turned out that there was no overlap between the kids in Child No.1's two parties even though they were in the same class! Why? Because the first party was a girl's party and the second party was not. Now again, you might be puzzled as to how we became the only point of intersection. Well, you see Child No.1, while physically a girl, is, in fact, a boy. So she gets invited to both parties. The upshot of all this ridiculousness, is that I had to be on site for the transfer.
But then we had another intractable issue because Child No.1's first party ended half an hour after her second party began. Something had to by thrown out and it turned out to be Child No.1's lunch. I would deposit Child No.2 and friend at Party 2 at 1pm and then collect Child No.1 at 1:05pm and somehow get to her next party by 1:15pm. It was a bowling party so we couldn't really be late.
From then on, the plan would be that I would collect Child No.1 at 3pm while the other parent collects Child No.2 and friend at the same time and brings them back to our house. All the while, their mother stays with Child No.3 who gets her nap and so the day is solved.
I announced the plan. Then their mother piped up, "I was hoping to get a swim in today." Following that, one parent was wiped from existence.
OK but this post isn't done yet. How did the plan go? It all looks nice and clean on Google Maps but there are obstacles. First, there is the issue of presents. You see, not only do children have to be transported to various parties but their presents do too. What you don't want to do is have a child responsible for transferring a present between parties as it is likely to get lost. Again, the missionary/cannibal issue comes up but with a third set of things to be transported. So I needed to make contingency plans for the presents. This involved loading up the car with all said presents and also, and I was particularly proud of myself for anticipating this one, friend of Child No.2 needs to have his present loaded into my car right at the beginning so that I had both their presents during the crucial party 1 to 2 transfer at 12:30pm. What this did mean is that I transported that present around all day. The present failed to note the irony of that one during the part of the journey we were alone together.
Second, sometimes it is not clear what you are supposed to do with regards to parties. When I arrived at Child No.2's first party to pick him up, I found it was a gigantic park. Where were they supposed to be? I phoned home and the invitation at Packer Park (or Oval Reserve) said they were in the Packer Pavilion. It wasn't obvious where that was. On the phone I requested support. I was expecting a high level of support given my logistic circumstances; you know, like Jack Bauer would get in 24.
"Call up a schematic of the park and transfer it to my PDA."
"You don't have a PDA."
"Well, my Blackberry then."
"I am not sure I can do that."
"You know I have no room for error here."
"OK, look for a big blue building at the South end of the park, latitude 145.3188 degrees South, longitude 37.540614 degrees East.
"Got it. Thanks. Was that so hard?"
Anyhow, I went inside and found all of the children in their pyjamas; apparently, some person's bright idea of a theme! Well, except one, Child No.2. That was fine: it was winter and he had another party to go to. His friend was dressed like that and we negotiated another five minutes was to whether he had a change of clothes for his second party. Apparently not. But we were now late.
Third, there is traffic. Now you might think that on a Sunday traffic isn't a problem. Not so. Three parties were located in a traffic and a parking disaster. So to get the last mile to that location takes at least 20 minutes. During that time traffic moves at a crawl as people try to find parking. I had finally spied a parking space on my first run into that area when someone in front of me scooted into it. I immediately took my thumb and forefinger out to apply The Force choking trick to them.
Child No.1 commented, "Dad, you know that doesn't work outside of Star Wars."
I replied, "It works for me."
"Do they really deserve to die? They were there first."
"You know, I am not planning to kill them. Darth Vader just made them uncomfortable. Just let me have my fun."
Which brings me to the final obstacle, parking. On run one, I found a space pretty easily. Run two was a nightmare, traffic and parking wise. We arrived 10 minutes late for Child No.2's second party and then, because I didn't want to give up my spot, I gathered Child No.1 and raced to her second party; arriving late for that. During which time I was informed that there had been a change of plans and Child No.1 would now be collected by someone else, taken to their house and we would pick her up later. I took the long walk back to the car and got some lunch.
And here I am writing this post while Child No.3 has her nap and her mother, who it turns out did survive the planning stage, goes for a swim. I have done 50kms driving, a 1km run and have spent 3 hours in the car and I am not done yet as neither child has actually been brought safely home. Not that a failure to do so would be totally bad (at least with regards to future parties) but the cannibals are supposed to get to the other side of the river in the correct solution to the problem.
So to the moral of this story: "no child gets more than one party in a day" is a good rule. Let them choose who their friends really are. Otherwise not all the missionaries are going to make it to the other side.
Three missionaries and three cannibals stand on the bank of a river that they wish to cross. There is a boat available which can ferry up to two people across. The goal is to find a schedule for ferrying all the cannibals and all the missionaries safely across the river. The constraint is that, if at any point the cannibals outnumber the missionaries on either bank, the cannibals will eat the missionaries. Note that the boat cannot cross the river by itself with no people on board.Sounds like my weekend! Substitute children for 'cannibals,' parents for 'missionaries,' car for 'boat' and across town for 'river' and you have my dilemma. Actually, it would be better to have this problem as we know there is an answer. That wasn't the case for the problems we faced.
There are lots of annoying things about kids' parties. One of the biggest is that they get invited to them. What is more, the potential number of parties one child might get invited to in a year is related to but not limited by the number of children that happen to be in their class. Indeed, my belief is that the biggest cost of increasing class sizes is the lost weekend time due to all the extra parties.
So this weekend a, fortunately rare, event occurred. Two of our children had two parties each on the same day at the same times. Child No.1 had a party at 10:30am (seeing Shrek again) that was due to end at 1:45pm and she had another party (this time bowling) due to begin at 1:15pm and end at 3 or so. Child No.2 had a party beginning at 10:30am and ending at 12:30pm (at a park) and then another from 1pm until 3pm (video gaming or something). Child No.3 had no party but really needed a nap from 1-3pm.
Think you can solve this: well, I am not done yet. This would all be well and good if we were at the same place for all this. But of course not. Without going into the details, Child No.2's first party was at location A which was 20km from Child No.1's first party at location B. Child No.2 then had a party at location B while Child No.1's second party was at Location B (sort of) in terms of parking but actually half a kilometer a way by foot.
But even that is complicated so to plan at least the location side of things out I did a mash-up in Google Maps (here is the link in case you are interested). Suffice it to say, there were real issues here. Our children's mother suggested the problem was "np-incomplete." I said, "you think!"
Nonetheless, there needed to be a plan and so one came. Clearly, I could not deposit both children at their desired Party 1's at 10:30am as they were 20km apart. We could use the other adult but instead tried to broker a deal with another parent who had a child going to both Child No.2's birthdays. The plan was this: I would take both children with me and head out from home at 9:45am. We would deposit Child No.2 at friend's house at 10am (also approximately marked on the map). Sadly, this was close to his party and 20km or so from Child No.1's first party. I would then drive Child No.1 to her first party and return home. So far so good.
Now you might think that next part of the plan would involve the other parent ferrying Child No.2 and friend to the next party. Sadly no. As I was going to have to be at the location for that party in order to transfer Child No.1 between parties there, it seemed better if I did that transfer.
So you might ask: why not find a parent to transfer Child No.1 between her two parties? That would have freed up the middle of the day. Well, it turned out that there was no overlap between the kids in Child No.1's two parties even though they were in the same class! Why? Because the first party was a girl's party and the second party was not. Now again, you might be puzzled as to how we became the only point of intersection. Well, you see Child No.1, while physically a girl, is, in fact, a boy. So she gets invited to both parties. The upshot of all this ridiculousness, is that I had to be on site for the transfer.
But then we had another intractable issue because Child No.1's first party ended half an hour after her second party began. Something had to by thrown out and it turned out to be Child No.1's lunch. I would deposit Child No.2 and friend at Party 2 at 1pm and then collect Child No.1 at 1:05pm and somehow get to her next party by 1:15pm. It was a bowling party so we couldn't really be late.
From then on, the plan would be that I would collect Child No.1 at 3pm while the other parent collects Child No.2 and friend at the same time and brings them back to our house. All the while, their mother stays with Child No.3 who gets her nap and so the day is solved.
I announced the plan. Then their mother piped up, "I was hoping to get a swim in today." Following that, one parent was wiped from existence.
OK but this post isn't done yet. How did the plan go? It all looks nice and clean on Google Maps but there are obstacles. First, there is the issue of presents. You see, not only do children have to be transported to various parties but their presents do too. What you don't want to do is have a child responsible for transferring a present between parties as it is likely to get lost. Again, the missionary/cannibal issue comes up but with a third set of things to be transported. So I needed to make contingency plans for the presents. This involved loading up the car with all said presents and also, and I was particularly proud of myself for anticipating this one, friend of Child No.2 needs to have his present loaded into my car right at the beginning so that I had both their presents during the crucial party 1 to 2 transfer at 12:30pm. What this did mean is that I transported that present around all day. The present failed to note the irony of that one during the part of the journey we were alone together.
Second, sometimes it is not clear what you are supposed to do with regards to parties. When I arrived at Child No.2's first party to pick him up, I found it was a gigantic park. Where were they supposed to be? I phoned home and the invitation at Packer Park (or Oval Reserve) said they were in the Packer Pavilion. It wasn't obvious where that was. On the phone I requested support. I was expecting a high level of support given my logistic circumstances; you know, like Jack Bauer would get in 24.
"Call up a schematic of the park and transfer it to my PDA."
"You don't have a PDA."
"Well, my Blackberry then."
"I am not sure I can do that."
"You know I have no room for error here."
"OK, look for a big blue building at the South end of the park, latitude 145.3188 degrees South, longitude 37.540614 degrees East.
"Got it. Thanks. Was that so hard?"
Anyhow, I went inside and found all of the children in their pyjamas; apparently, some person's bright idea of a theme! Well, except one, Child No.2. That was fine: it was winter and he had another party to go to. His friend was dressed like that and we negotiated another five minutes was to whether he had a change of clothes for his second party. Apparently not. But we were now late.
Third, there is traffic. Now you might think that on a Sunday traffic isn't a problem. Not so. Three parties were located in a traffic and a parking disaster. So to get the last mile to that location takes at least 20 minutes. During that time traffic moves at a crawl as people try to find parking. I had finally spied a parking space on my first run into that area when someone in front of me scooted into it. I immediately took my thumb and forefinger out to apply The Force choking trick to them.
Child No.1 commented, "Dad, you know that doesn't work outside of Star Wars."
I replied, "It works for me."
"Do they really deserve to die? They were there first."
"You know, I am not planning to kill them. Darth Vader just made them uncomfortable. Just let me have my fun."
Which brings me to the final obstacle, parking. On run one, I found a space pretty easily. Run two was a nightmare, traffic and parking wise. We arrived 10 minutes late for Child No.2's second party and then, because I didn't want to give up my spot, I gathered Child No.1 and raced to her second party; arriving late for that. During which time I was informed that there had been a change of plans and Child No.1 would now be collected by someone else, taken to their house and we would pick her up later. I took the long walk back to the car and got some lunch.
And here I am writing this post while Child No.3 has her nap and her mother, who it turns out did survive the planning stage, goes for a swim. I have done 50kms driving, a 1km run and have spent 3 hours in the car and I am not done yet as neither child has actually been brought safely home. Not that a failure to do so would be totally bad (at least with regards to future parties) but the cannibals are supposed to get to the other side of the river in the correct solution to the problem.
So to the moral of this story: "no child gets more than one party in a day" is a good rule. Let them choose who their friends really are. Otherwise not all the missionaries are going to make it to the other side.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Week 5: Pageant of the Transmundane
Greetings from Nelson, BC and the unnaturally beautiful weather in the Canadian interior.
And this week we Once again we return to the wonderful world of Quixoticals for a slice of strangeness, this time in video form.
This is one of those weeks where the surprise is half the fun, and sometimes you have to see something for yourself for the full genius to be revealed. All I am saying is it is a video and it is a parody of something, take of that what you will.
So that is why this week's Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award is just a very general picture of its namesake, so as to not reveal too much about the item that won it, because I don't want to spoil the surprise. I remember the last time Christopher won this award, I did much the same thing.
Congrats Christopher on your second win of this weekly award. Huzzah!
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
And this week we Once again we return to the wonderful world of Quixoticals for a slice of strangeness, this time in video form.
This is one of those weeks where the surprise is half the fun, and sometimes you have to see something for yourself for the full genius to be revealed. All I am saying is it is a video and it is a parody of something, take of that what you will.
So that is why this week's Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award is just a very general picture of its namesake, so as to not reveal too much about the item that won it, because I don't want to spoil the surprise. I remember the last time Christopher won this award, I did much the same thing.
Congrats Christopher on your second win of this weekly award. Huzzah!
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
Tags:
Trading punishments
Yesterday, the 6 year old came back from swimming and his mother could not find his swimmers in his bag. Not only that his spare swimmers were missing too. This was not the first time this had happened but previously this had been worked out before everyone arrived home so the swimmers could be rescued.
Forgetfulness is not something we want to encourage and so he received a punishment. On Friday nights the family sits down to watch Survivor. This week he would miss out. He was upset and keep on claiming that he didn't know how this had happened. Those protests of innocence fell on deaf ears.
Today, his mother found the swimmers -- both pairs -- in his bag exactly where they should have been. Oops. Indeed, this was the second such incident in as many weeks. Last week, he had been accused of misplacing his school pants at home; something that seemed to me a hard thing to do. Turns out someone had mistakenly put his pants away in his sister's closet. Oops.
Each time the lynching accuser was his mother. So what to do about this. Now sometimes we have falsely punished but to maintain our reputation we had stuck with it as the child, at least, had no direct evidence of their innocence. They were younger too and it was plausible to them they had done something wrong. Yes, I know, this isn't fair but there is a bigger picture of the system here and it doesn't happen that often. After all, think of all the things they should be punished for but we are missing. The system balances out on average.
This time around the evidence was irrefutable. What to do? First, up was to restore the unfair punishment. I offered him a 'free pass.' The next time he did something that was due a punishment, he would get off with just a warning. As that was likely to be in the near future, he was happy with the deal.
But what to do with the false accusation which had (a) had not been a once-off (b) did not involve me? I suggested that the 6 year old be able to think of a punishment for his mother. That created amusement all round; well, except for one person. But it was accepted.
He struggled with what type of punishment to give. He toyed with going to bed early but quickly realised that that wasn't a punishment at all; and if he hadn't realised it, I would have pointed it out. Then he naturally gravitated towards the 'eye for an eye' philosophy. "Next time on Survivor, you won't be watching, Mummy."
He started to speculate on whether that was enough and perhaps she should be forced to sit through The Wiggles while we all watched. I love his sense of irony but pointed out that that bit was really just for his amusement and that perhaps he didn't want us to start thinking that we could add things we would find amusing to punishments too. So he left it at reciprocity.
All in all a satisfying outcome and no doubt his mother will think twice before accusing him of crimes in the future. Of course, I suspect it is only a matter of time before his older sister, who is very risk averse, hits on the idea of pre-punishment: you know, can you punish me now so that if the next one falls at a time that might be inconvenient or uncertain, she would have one in the bank. It is an interesting idea but one suspects that there is a reason one cannot pay for parking tickets in advance. You want the punishment cost to be immediate and linked to the activity rather than sunk. It will be interesting to see if my son's next crime is committed in haste.
I am calling Shenanigans on Last Comic Standing!
I am calling shenanigans on the current season of Last Comic Standing. I am not going to disclose who got picked and who got dismissed from the New York, Montreal and San Antonio audition process, but in the comments section, it is all up for discussion. I am going to mention one specific person in this entry who was part of the audition process, and only one.
No, I am questioning the whole premise of this season from a strictly numerical standpoint.
You see, the show took quite a few comedians(I think 6-8) from New York and I don't have a problem with that because it is one of the meccas of stand up. Then they travelled to Montreal and took 3 comedians for the show... and then headed down to San Antonio and picked up 3 more comedians.
And by now a lot of you are probably saying what is the problem with that? Well, considering that Montreal is a) the site of the Just for Laughs festival, meaning there is a huge comedic community in that city b) it is a short plane/train ride from Toronto and c) represents the only stop in Canada the show is going to make, well, our comedic talent is woefully underrepresented, especially considering that in the same show, 3 comedians were chosen from San Antonio.
The reason I am complaining about this is because they are billing the show as being international this season, and really, 3 Canadians (and likely 3 Brits and Aussies) does not an international show make, because there are also auditions in Los Angeles and well, I have a feeling they are taking at least 5 from there, so it still going to be a very heavily American show.
I felt bad for Laurie Elliott, because the cut made it appear as if she was just some hack who had no business being there(they do those same kind of montages), when in fact, she is as accomplished as anyone who made it to the full audience show later that night, and is certainly better than Ant. And to add insult to injury, they spelled her first name wrong when showing her audition.
Now, I have to wait until next week to see how much more pissed I am going to get with this series, though I don't know how it is doing in the ratings, so for all I know NBC will repeat their season 3 experiment and cancel it before it is completed. Wouldn't that be interesting.
No, I am questioning the whole premise of this season from a strictly numerical standpoint.
You see, the show took quite a few comedians(I think 6-8) from New York and I don't have a problem with that because it is one of the meccas of stand up. Then they travelled to Montreal and took 3 comedians for the show... and then headed down to San Antonio and picked up 3 more comedians.
And by now a lot of you are probably saying what is the problem with that? Well, considering that Montreal is a) the site of the Just for Laughs festival, meaning there is a huge comedic community in that city b) it is a short plane/train ride from Toronto and c) represents the only stop in Canada the show is going to make, well, our comedic talent is woefully underrepresented, especially considering that in the same show, 3 comedians were chosen from San Antonio.
The reason I am complaining about this is because they are billing the show as being international this season, and really, 3 Canadians (and likely 3 Brits and Aussies) does not an international show make, because there are also auditions in Los Angeles and well, I have a feeling they are taking at least 5 from there, so it still going to be a very heavily American show.
I felt bad for Laurie Elliott, because the cut made it appear as if she was just some hack who had no business being there(they do those same kind of montages), when in fact, she is as accomplished as anyone who made it to the full audience show later that night, and is certainly better than Ant. And to add insult to injury, they spelled her first name wrong when showing her audition.
Now, I have to wait until next week to see how much more pissed I am going to get with this series, though I don't know how it is doing in the ratings, so for all I know NBC will repeat their season 3 experiment and cancel it before it is completed. Wouldn't that be interesting.
Tags:
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Books that will never be made into movies
I was casting my mind back to some of the books I've read in the past and I was surprised about how many of them had been turned into movies. But there were a few titles which really stood out as unviable as cinematic projects, and I don't see them ever being made into feature films.
The short list:
Book: Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon
Thumbnail Sketch of what it is about: Generally speaking, the main narrative darts all around the development and implementation of the V2 rocket during the Second World War but that is just the tip of the iceberg for a book that one member of the Pulitzer committee of 1974 could even get through.
Reasons why it will never be made: First of all, Joel Schumacher bought the rights to make this movie, but part of me thinks he hasn't really read it... because wow, the story is almost all digression, so pulling a cohesive story out of it all... I don't think he has the skills, and I think through the development process this will become more and more apparent. And I have a feeling that if Mr. Schumacher was pitching this story to execs at most of the major studios they'd reject him. (Full Disclosure: I read Gravity's Rainbow a few years ago, and I didn't really dig it, so I may have a bias).
--
Series: The Gap Series by Stephen R. Donaldson from the early 1990's
Thumbnail Sketch of what it is about: Inspired by the Ring Cycle by Wagner, this is a dark space opera on the grandest of scales. Mankind has colonized vast portions of the galaxy through the actions monopolistic mining corporation who also controls the police in deep space and uses the threat of genetic assimilation from an alien race called the Amnion to maintain its hold on power. But an incident at a deep space mining post involving a young female officer, and two opposing space pirates may change everything.
Reasons why it will never be made: The novella that sets the whole series up, The Real Story, is simply brutal in a way that is really not commercially viable, as the female protagonist is raped repeatedly by another major character, both of whom are important to the overall storyline. At the same time, the events in this book becomes central to everything that is to come later on. But because it isn't implicitly part of the Wagnerian saga, but merely a preamble to the events to come, it could be skipped and have some of its material integrated into the larger story arc later. But given the fact that after that novella, the other 4 novels average about 600 pages a piece and are technically far more demanding, the likelihood that a studio would be willing to outlay so much money on a series that frankly didn't have a large following seems really unlikely.
--
Book: The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
Thumbnail Sketch of what it is about: Two Anglo-Indian actors miraculously survive a bombing on a flight from India to England, and because of this experience, they each believe themselves to be an archangel and the devil respectively.
Reasons why it will never be made: Do I really need to explain this one? *cough*fatwa*cough*
I bet some of you out there have read some decent books that you think will never made into movies either, for better or worse, and I'm fascinated in what your thoughts on this subject are.
The short list:
Book: Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon
Thumbnail Sketch of what it is about: Generally speaking, the main narrative darts all around the development and implementation of the V2 rocket during the Second World War but that is just the tip of the iceberg for a book that one member of the Pulitzer committee of 1974 could even get through.
Reasons why it will never be made: First of all, Joel Schumacher bought the rights to make this movie, but part of me thinks he hasn't really read it... because wow, the story is almost all digression, so pulling a cohesive story out of it all... I don't think he has the skills, and I think through the development process this will become more and more apparent. And I have a feeling that if Mr. Schumacher was pitching this story to execs at most of the major studios they'd reject him. (Full Disclosure: I read Gravity's Rainbow a few years ago, and I didn't really dig it, so I may have a bias).
--
Series: The Gap Series by Stephen R. Donaldson from the early 1990's
Thumbnail Sketch of what it is about: Inspired by the Ring Cycle by Wagner, this is a dark space opera on the grandest of scales. Mankind has colonized vast portions of the galaxy through the actions monopolistic mining corporation who also controls the police in deep space and uses the threat of genetic assimilation from an alien race called the Amnion to maintain its hold on power. But an incident at a deep space mining post involving a young female officer, and two opposing space pirates may change everything.
Reasons why it will never be made: The novella that sets the whole series up, The Real Story, is simply brutal in a way that is really not commercially viable, as the female protagonist is raped repeatedly by another major character, both of whom are important to the overall storyline. At the same time, the events in this book becomes central to everything that is to come later on. But because it isn't implicitly part of the Wagnerian saga, but merely a preamble to the events to come, it could be skipped and have some of its material integrated into the larger story arc later. But given the fact that after that novella, the other 4 novels average about 600 pages a piece and are technically far more demanding, the likelihood that a studio would be willing to outlay so much money on a series that frankly didn't have a large following seems really unlikely.
--
Book: The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
Thumbnail Sketch of what it is about: Two Anglo-Indian actors miraculously survive a bombing on a flight from India to England, and because of this experience, they each believe themselves to be an archangel and the devil respectively.
Reasons why it will never be made: Do I really need to explain this one? *cough*fatwa*cough*
I bet some of you out there have read some decent books that you think will never made into movies either, for better or worse, and I'm fascinated in what your thoughts on this subject are.
Tags:
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A sequel to one of my beloved classics
Almost a year back I extolled the virtues of a certain action movie from 1996 starring Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson(and no, it isn't secretly Samuel L. Jackson week here at Culture Kills, I assure you), and I was pleased to hear that Renny Harlin and Mr. Jackson now have a development deal to make a sequel to The Long Kiss Goodnight.
Yes, I am supporting a really late sequel, I can't believe it myself. But I loves me some Mitch Henessey, especially the wardrobe, and I look forward to spending more time with him.
Of course, the point that keeps coming up is that Shane Black who penned the original will most likely not return, so screenwriting is going to be a huge issue with this, because all those great quips that made the original so enjoyable have to come from somewhere, and from a less confident writer, well, the same ease won't be there.
I am far less concerned about the possible absence of Geena Davis from the project however, as Mitch was always the more compelling character to me. Plus I understand that the whole Davis-Harlin thing would likely make for an uncomfortable shooting set.
In any case, if this project does make it, I will certainly give it a more than fair screening. After all, at the time the first one was made, candy bars cost a nickel... and two quarters. No one is going to kill my enthusiasm.
Yes, I am supporting a really late sequel, I can't believe it myself. But I loves me some Mitch Henessey, especially the wardrobe, and I look forward to spending more time with him.
Of course, the point that keeps coming up is that Shane Black who penned the original will most likely not return, so screenwriting is going to be a huge issue with this, because all those great quips that made the original so enjoyable have to come from somewhere, and from a less confident writer, well, the same ease won't be there.
I am far less concerned about the possible absence of Geena Davis from the project however, as Mitch was always the more compelling character to me. Plus I understand that the whole Davis-Harlin thing would likely make for an uncomfortable shooting set.
In any case, if this project does make it, I will certainly give it a more than fair screening. After all, at the time the first one was made, candy bars cost a nickel... and two quarters. No one is going to kill my enthusiasm.
Tags:
30 second Bunnies Theatre does it again
Not all bunnied-up movies are of the same high-quality... because some movies are really hard to condense down to 30 seconds... but there was one man whose experience in a movie can be summed up well in half a minute.
Hard-drinkin', hard-fightin', super cop John McClane in his first cinematic experience.
Die Hard in 30 seconds just had to be made... and it is sad to think that those 30 seconds are probably going to be better than the PG-13 farce of a Die Hard the studios are giving us this summer. I mean, at least it has the best swear of them all in it.
Hard-drinkin', hard-fightin', super cop John McClane in his first cinematic experience.
Die Hard in 30 seconds just had to be made... and it is sad to think that those 30 seconds are probably going to be better than the PG-13 farce of a Die Hard the studios are giving us this summer. I mean, at least it has the best swear of them all in it.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)