This entry is a week late but the 11/23 episode of the CBS show Numb3rs revolved around comic books and a convention. The writers knew their material.
For those who never saw it (this was my first time), the show is about a pair of brothers. One is a typical FBI agent. The other one is a math genius who uses game theory, auction theory, etc. to help solve the crime.
In this case, a comic book investor announced that he had discovered the rarest of comic books - an ashcan edition of a 30+ year old favorite. Ashcan editions are cheap, black and white copies often printed on smaller than usual paper. They are only produced for copyright purposes and often the entire print run is thrown away (hence the name).
No sooner was the comic unveiled then a masked gunman appeared, shot a guard, and stole the comic. Later, dozens of fake copies of the comic appeared.
The show touched on several issues dear to the comic collector's heart. One was benefits for the creators. In this case, there was a possibility that the rare comic had been stolen from the creator's personal collection. He wanted to leave it to his wife to provide for her retirement after he died. This echoes a campaign in the 1970s and early 1980s for DC to provide benefits to Superman's creators.
The person who unveiled the comic was a collector, not a fan. All he cared about was the value of his collection. Fans hate this sort because they run up the price of back issues, keeping them out of the hands of people who want to read them.
The math angles included looking at how much ink seeped into the paper on the theory that forgers write slower, allowing more time for the ink to sink in, and an analysis of the forgeries which turned out to have a mathematical code buried in them.
The comic creator was played by Christopher Lloyd who has played an animated character in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
The guy who played "Henry" in Eureka was also in it but I forget his name.
I preferred the comic convention episode of Psych (which I never blogged about) but this one was good for network TV.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
How to get your on-line fix
I got a comment asking for the best way to get comics on-line. Good question. I don't have a definite answer, just alternatives.
First, the Kindle doesn't do comic books. It is text-only. The same is true for Sony's reader.
The iPhone has wireless connectivity but it is slow and the display is pretty small. Also, you are still very limited on what you can store internally.
There are some PDAs running a version of Windows. Many of these support WiFi and some support wireless. They still have tiny screens.
If you search around you can get a laptop for the same price as the Kindle and it will have a color display. Most laptops sold now have WiFi. This also gives you the option of downloading comics from the web for later reading or getting one of the CD-ROM collections. I have the X-Men CDROM. It has each issue in a separate Adobe file, complete with ads and the letters page (old Marvel letters pages were great). This is not the friendliest format but it would take days to read everything. Of course, current comics are not included and only a few titles have been released this way.
If money is no object then get a tablet PC and a wireless card. I have a wireless card for my work PC and response is pretty good.
On the low-end, new PCs are coming out to compete with the One Laptop Per Child. These have a small display but are cheap and durable and come with built-in WiFi.
First, the Kindle doesn't do comic books. It is text-only. The same is true for Sony's reader.
The iPhone has wireless connectivity but it is slow and the display is pretty small. Also, you are still very limited on what you can store internally.
There are some PDAs running a version of Windows. Many of these support WiFi and some support wireless. They still have tiny screens.
If you search around you can get a laptop for the same price as the Kindle and it will have a color display. Most laptops sold now have WiFi. This also gives you the option of downloading comics from the web for later reading or getting one of the CD-ROM collections. I have the X-Men CDROM. It has each issue in a separate Adobe file, complete with ads and the letters page (old Marvel letters pages were great). This is not the friendliest format but it would take days to read everything. Of course, current comics are not included and only a few titles have been released this way.
If money is no object then get a tablet PC and a wireless card. I have a wireless card for my work PC and response is pretty good.
On the low-end, new PCs are coming out to compete with the One Laptop Per Child. These have a small display but are cheap and durable and come with built-in WiFi.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Amazon's Kindle
Amazon announced a new e-book called the Kindle. E-book readers are nothing new. The idea is simple enough - build a small, light device that can display text and use it to store and read books. Science Fiction author Ben Bova wrote a humorous novel called "cyberbooks" around the idea in 1989.
So far the concept has fallen flat for a few reasons.
1) The reader is not good enough.
2) The e-books have DRM tying them to the reader.
3) Cost.
The technology on the readers has advanced. The current ones including Kindle are supposed to be very readable in good light, even sunlight. They are not backlit, though, so they cannot be read in poor lighting conditions.
The DRM continues to be an issue. Kindle promises that you will always be able to retrieve your book from them. Don't count on it. A couple of video download sites reneged or had technical problems on files that were only a year or two old. Further, they might well change the format forcing you to upgrade your reader. Microsoft does that every time they release a new version of Office.
But the real issue is cost. These things are expensive. The Kindle is $400. For that you get the ability to buy books, newspapers, and blogs over wireless (not Wi-Fi). The nearest competitor requires that you sync with a PC but still costs around $300.Keep in mind that you can buy a usable laptop PC for $400. For that much money you can buy a One Laptop Per Child PC for yourself and donate one to a 3rd world child. And you get a color display. Or you could buy an iPod Touch with money left over.
Then there is the cost of the book itself. The paperback I'm currently reading cost $7. If I bought it through Amazon for the Kindle it would cost $10. Presumably I'm supposed to compare the price to a hardback which would cost more. On the other hand, with a hardback I have a real, solid book. I can read it again or lend it to someone else. I'll bet that you can't lend an e-book.
The paperback is a better comparison, anyway. Most novels sold are paperbacks. They are cheaper to produce, ship, and store. They can be carried with you and they don't cost so much that you mind giving getting rid of them when you finish reading them.
E-books are even cheaper and easier to produce and ship. There are no overruns and no reason to do second printings. The publisher produces as many as there is demand.
So why don't they cost less?
The short answer is greed. The long answer is that publishers don't want to come up with a new business model. They prefer running the one they have now into the ground.
The music industry is being forced to change its business model because it is so easy to rip a CD into an MP3 file. If books could be scanned as easily we would already be seeing real choices.
So far the concept has fallen flat for a few reasons.
1) The reader is not good enough.
2) The e-books have DRM tying them to the reader.
3) Cost.
The technology on the readers has advanced. The current ones including Kindle are supposed to be very readable in good light, even sunlight. They are not backlit, though, so they cannot be read in poor lighting conditions.
The DRM continues to be an issue. Kindle promises that you will always be able to retrieve your book from them. Don't count on it. A couple of video download sites reneged or had technical problems on files that were only a year or two old. Further, they might well change the format forcing you to upgrade your reader. Microsoft does that every time they release a new version of Office.
But the real issue is cost. These things are expensive. The Kindle is $400. For that you get the ability to buy books, newspapers, and blogs over wireless (not Wi-Fi). The nearest competitor requires that you sync with a PC but still costs around $300.Keep in mind that you can buy a usable laptop PC for $400. For that much money you can buy a One Laptop Per Child PC for yourself and donate one to a 3rd world child. And you get a color display. Or you could buy an iPod Touch with money left over.
Then there is the cost of the book itself. The paperback I'm currently reading cost $7. If I bought it through Amazon for the Kindle it would cost $10. Presumably I'm supposed to compare the price to a hardback which would cost more. On the other hand, with a hardback I have a real, solid book. I can read it again or lend it to someone else. I'll bet that you can't lend an e-book.
The paperback is a better comparison, anyway. Most novels sold are paperbacks. They are cheaper to produce, ship, and store. They can be carried with you and they don't cost so much that you mind giving getting rid of them when you finish reading them.
E-books are even cheaper and easier to produce and ship. There are no overruns and no reason to do second printings. The publisher produces as many as there is demand.
So why don't they cost less?
The short answer is greed. The long answer is that publishers don't want to come up with a new business model. They prefer running the one they have now into the ground.
The music industry is being forced to change its business model because it is so easy to rip a CD into an MP3 file. If books could be scanned as easily we would already be seeing real choices.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Ira Levin
The writer Ira Levin just died. While not a prolific writer, he was influential. His novel Rosemary's Baby started a national fascination with the occult that lasted more than a decade. The Stepford Wives triggered protests by feminists that anyone would suggest that some men might be dissatisfied with Woman's Lib. The Boys From Brazil was the first that many people heard about cloning.
All of these were fairly light novels - quick reads. They almost read like movie adaptations.
In my opinion, his best novel was one of his more obscure ones - This Perfect Day.
This is a dysfunctional Utopian novel, something like Brave New World but with a background closer to 1984. It features a world from the John Lenin song Imagine. There is only one country and it is run by dispassionate computers. The population has been cross-bred until there is a single race of people with brown skin, black hair, and brown eyes. Everyone dresses alike, eats the same thing, and even has a similar life expectancy. Religion has been condensed into a single belief with four prophets. The title comes from the chant, "Christ, Marx, Wood, and Wei led us to this perfect day."
Like Brave New World, this world is not kind to outsiders. In this case, it is the few people with recessive genes. Having green eyes or pale hair or large breasts makes you an outcast.
It is a cautionary take on what the world would be like if political correctness took over completely.
All of these were fairly light novels - quick reads. They almost read like movie adaptations.
In my opinion, his best novel was one of his more obscure ones - This Perfect Day.
This is a dysfunctional Utopian novel, something like Brave New World but with a background closer to 1984. It features a world from the John Lenin song Imagine. There is only one country and it is run by dispassionate computers. The population has been cross-bred until there is a single race of people with brown skin, black hair, and brown eyes. Everyone dresses alike, eats the same thing, and even has a similar life expectancy. Religion has been condensed into a single belief with four prophets. The title comes from the chant, "Christ, Marx, Wood, and Wei led us to this perfect day."
Like Brave New World, this world is not kind to outsiders. In this case, it is the few people with recessive genes. Having green eyes or pale hair or large breasts makes you an outcast.
It is a cautionary take on what the world would be like if political correctness took over completely.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
War Movies
There has been a spate of recent war movies and they have all tanked at the box office. The most recent one, Lions for Lambs, opened at number 4 with around $6.7 million despite big names like Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford who also directed.
There has been a lot of speculation about this. Is it because Iraq (and Afghanistan) are too fresh? Is it because these are really political movies about the war? Is it because these movies amount to anti-American rants from spoiled Hollywood celebrities?
All of these are undoubtedly factors but they overlook the performance of war movies in general over the last few years. Last night I watched Valiant, a British CGI movie about carrier pigeons during WWII. It was not a great movie but it was entertaining and child-friendly. It did very poor business in the US. A bit over a year ago Fly Boys was released. This was a traditional war movie about WWI fliers. It was really good but it spun out at the box office.
In he Summer of 2005 The Great Raid was released. It was a movie about the rescue of POWs during WWII. This didn't make any money, either. (Side note - the last surviving combat veteran from WWII was one of those rescued in the real-life event.)
My conclusion is that war movies just aren't very popular right now.
There are different types of war movies. The original ones were retelling battles from WWII. During WWII they were meant to inspire the audience to help with the war effort and to make them feel more in touch with
the war itself. After WWII ended there was a big market for any movie with a war tie-in. After all, a huge portion of the population had served in the war. Those who were not veterans were likely related to a vet. It was the shared experience of a generation.
A much smaller portion of the population went to Viet Nam. Between that and the war's unpopularity there were few war movies about Viet Nam until the war was over. These were mainly anti-war movies.
The conflicts in-between have been too short and too limited to count as a generational defining point. I doubt that most people even remember the invasion of Grenada. The same is true for the first Gulf War - it happened fast with little American sacrifice.
Today it is impossible to imagine a pro-Iraq war being made. Hollywood hates the war and the president so all that comes out is anti-war. Even that doesn't seem to be any good so there is nothing to attract audiences. At the same time, most people are against the war according to polls but they don't feel strongly enough to take to the streets. Recent protests keep getting smaller and smaller. That doesn't leave much of an audience for bad anti-war movies.
Happy Veterans' Day.
There has been a lot of speculation about this. Is it because Iraq (and Afghanistan) are too fresh? Is it because these are really political movies about the war? Is it because these movies amount to anti-American rants from spoiled Hollywood celebrities?
All of these are undoubtedly factors but they overlook the performance of war movies in general over the last few years. Last night I watched Valiant, a British CGI movie about carrier pigeons during WWII. It was not a great movie but it was entertaining and child-friendly. It did very poor business in the US. A bit over a year ago Fly Boys was released. This was a traditional war movie about WWI fliers. It was really good but it spun out at the box office.
In he Summer of 2005 The Great Raid was released. It was a movie about the rescue of POWs during WWII. This didn't make any money, either. (Side note - the last surviving combat veteran from WWII was one of those rescued in the real-life event.)
My conclusion is that war movies just aren't very popular right now.
There are different types of war movies. The original ones were retelling battles from WWII. During WWII they were meant to inspire the audience to help with the war effort and to make them feel more in touch with
the war itself. After WWII ended there was a big market for any movie with a war tie-in. After all, a huge portion of the population had served in the war. Those who were not veterans were likely related to a vet. It was the shared experience of a generation.
A much smaller portion of the population went to Viet Nam. Between that and the war's unpopularity there were few war movies about Viet Nam until the war was over. These were mainly anti-war movies.
The conflicts in-between have been too short and too limited to count as a generational defining point. I doubt that most people even remember the invasion of Grenada. The same is true for the first Gulf War - it happened fast with little American sacrifice.
Today it is impossible to imagine a pro-Iraq war being made. Hollywood hates the war and the president so all that comes out is anti-war. Even that doesn't seem to be any good so there is nothing to attract audiences. At the same time, most people are against the war according to polls but they don't feel strongly enough to take to the streets. Recent protests keep getting smaller and smaller. That doesn't leave much of an audience for bad anti-war movies.
Happy Veterans' Day.
Friday, November 02, 2007
The TV Season so far
Sweeps month has started. How is the TV season holding up?
Heroes is doing ok. It got off to a better start than in the first season. Still, it is lacking direction. Last year the characters seemed to cross paths more. Also, we knew that the big goal was to stop New York from blowing up. From the last few minutes of the most recent episode we might have the same sort of plot arc developing except with a plague. If so, it took long enough to tell us. Also, the mechanism - a character teleporting into the future and finding a devastated New York - seems a bit familiar.
On either end of Heroes we have Chuck and Journeyman. Chuck is ok although it seems like it could be better. By next season they will need to come up with a new premise. The current one - a nerd has a lot of secret files in his head and two rival spies are undercover with him at a Best Buy-type store - will only work for so long. Following Heroes we have Journeyman. I watched a couple of episodes but they left me cold. They seem to be taking their time explaining the premise but neither the plots nor the characters are engaging enough to make me keep watching long enough to find out what's going on.
I can say the same thing for the Bionic Woman. The show is going in two different directions at once. On the one hand they are trying for gritty realism with a woman who suddenly gains super powers and the limits that they have. On the other hand, the powers themselves are way into science fiction. They would have been better served by keeping to the original show's bionics rather than using nanites. The treatment doesn't interest me much.
I've only seen one episode of Reaper. It seems like a cross between Chuck and Pushing Daisies and would seem a lot fresher if neither of the others was on. It has its moments.
I've only seen a couple of episodes of the vampire detective show Moonlight. The premise has been done before and the writing is really bad. In the pilot I knew who the killer was within a minute of when they introduced him - not because of any clues, he was the obvious suspect's assistant and the hack writers wanted a twist.
There aren't many "regular" shows I watch. Boston Legal is one of the few. It seems a bit off. Shatner's character was always the highlight of the show but they toned him down this season. He is still over-the-top but not by much. The same thing happened to the rest of the characters. They've all been toned down.
Pushing Daisies continues to be the best show on. After five episodes they moved beyond the initial premise into weird crimes. With strong but subtle continuity and a narrator tying everything together, the best description would be Tim Burton meets Arrested Development.
Heroes is doing ok. It got off to a better start than in the first season. Still, it is lacking direction. Last year the characters seemed to cross paths more. Also, we knew that the big goal was to stop New York from blowing up. From the last few minutes of the most recent episode we might have the same sort of plot arc developing except with a plague. If so, it took long enough to tell us. Also, the mechanism - a character teleporting into the future and finding a devastated New York - seems a bit familiar.
On either end of Heroes we have Chuck and Journeyman. Chuck is ok although it seems like it could be better. By next season they will need to come up with a new premise. The current one - a nerd has a lot of secret files in his head and two rival spies are undercover with him at a Best Buy-type store - will only work for so long. Following Heroes we have Journeyman. I watched a couple of episodes but they left me cold. They seem to be taking their time explaining the premise but neither the plots nor the characters are engaging enough to make me keep watching long enough to find out what's going on.
I can say the same thing for the Bionic Woman. The show is going in two different directions at once. On the one hand they are trying for gritty realism with a woman who suddenly gains super powers and the limits that they have. On the other hand, the powers themselves are way into science fiction. They would have been better served by keeping to the original show's bionics rather than using nanites. The treatment doesn't interest me much.
I've only seen one episode of Reaper. It seems like a cross between Chuck and Pushing Daisies and would seem a lot fresher if neither of the others was on. It has its moments.
I've only seen a couple of episodes of the vampire detective show Moonlight. The premise has been done before and the writing is really bad. In the pilot I knew who the killer was within a minute of when they introduced him - not because of any clues, he was the obvious suspect's assistant and the hack writers wanted a twist.
There aren't many "regular" shows I watch. Boston Legal is one of the few. It seems a bit off. Shatner's character was always the highlight of the show but they toned him down this season. He is still over-the-top but not by much. The same thing happened to the rest of the characters. They've all been toned down.
Pushing Daisies continues to be the best show on. After five episodes they moved beyond the initial premise into weird crimes. With strong but subtle continuity and a narrator tying everything together, the best description would be Tim Burton meets Arrested Development.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Pushing Daisies
This is easily the best new show on TV. The premise is a bit strange. A pie-maker solves murders on the side by bringing people back to life with a touch, asking them how they died, then returning them to death with a second touch. Once they have been touched a second time they are dead for good.
Also, if he doesn't touch them the second time within 60 seconds then something else dies.
The twist is that he found his childhood love in the morgue and let her live. (A second twist is that years before he brought his mother back to life and her father died to balance it.)
What really sets the show apart is the presentation. It has the best narration since Arrested Development. Many of the sets are brightly lit with primary colors giving it the same feel as Tim Burton's Big Fish.
Then there are the murders. They are as off-beat as the rest of the show. In the second episode a man was killed by a crash test dummy.
Then there is the sexual tension between the leads. They are strongly attracted to each other but cannot touch directly.
The big question is if they can keep it up. Often shows like this start out string but can't live up to the pilot. By the time they are canceled it is a mercy killing. At three episodes in, they haven't slacked off yet which is pretty promising.
Also, if he doesn't touch them the second time within 60 seconds then something else dies.
The twist is that he found his childhood love in the morgue and let her live. (A second twist is that years before he brought his mother back to life and her father died to balance it.)
What really sets the show apart is the presentation. It has the best narration since Arrested Development. Many of the sets are brightly lit with primary colors giving it the same feel as Tim Burton's Big Fish.
Then there are the murders. They are as off-beat as the rest of the show. In the second episode a man was killed by a crash test dummy.
Then there is the sexual tension between the leads. They are strongly attracted to each other but cannot touch directly.
The big question is if they can keep it up. Often shows like this start out string but can't live up to the pilot. By the time they are canceled it is a mercy killing. At three episodes in, they haven't slacked off yet which is pretty promising.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Windows vs Mac
Last week I wrote about the iPhone and issues that I see with owning one. I noticed a recent column in ZDNews about why Windows users in general don't switch to the Mac. This in turn leads to an earlier column on the same subject on a pro-Apple site. I thought I would add in my own observations. Unlike the columns I mentioned, I am not a Mac user. I have used a Mac a few times. The most I have done was some trouble-shooting on why a Mac wasn't connecting to the Internet properly (it was using the wrong name-server and I had to open a unix prompt to figure it out). I will also note that I have extensive Unix and Linux background. Basically, this is why someone who is not afraid of new operating systems does not switch.
Let's get the big reason out first - money. I've priced at Macs. They start at around $1,100. I can get a perfectly usable PC for half that. I realize that I can get a Mac mini for a lot less and hook up my own peripherals. It's still a lot of money since a comparably-priced PC will include everything.
Mac users can argue that their boxes are better built, will do more, etc. I don't care. A BMW owner could make the same points without getting me to buy a new, more expensive car.
This dovetails into the second big factor - OS/10 may be great but Windows XP is good enough. I can do everything I want a PC to do on XP. some things may be easier or work better on the Mac but it is not enough difference to switch.
There are hidden costs to making the switch. If I buy a new PC I can usually run all of my old software. If I buy an Apple I have to get new software. Some products don't have an Apple version. There are replacements but this could get expensive quickly. I have a lot of graphics software (all legal). Some I bought. Some I got free through special offers. I am sure I would lose a lot of it if I switched to Mac. Yes, thee is boot-camp. I could buy a version of Windows and run it on the Mac. All of my software would work but I'd be left with an expensive Windows PC. I think I could run it in a virtual session at a performance penalty and I'd probably still have to buy Windows.
A different hidden cost - hardware upgrades. I've gone through several PCs and I usually stretch their life by upgrading the disk, memory and possibly the video. I'm not sure how possible this is with the Mac.
Apple's ads don't help their case. They have several that imply that PCs can only be used for business. One in particular has the Mac guy showing off his digital pictures while the PC guy shows a spreadsheet graphing how much fun he had. This ad was so over the top wrong that my wife even complained about it. This raises the question - if I know that Apple is lying in some ads, why should I believe the other ads? Even without that, the PC guy is more likable than the Mac guy.
Then there is the whole cult of Steve thing. I have it on good authority that Steve Jobs is a jerk to work for. He is a control freak. usually this only affects people at Apple but sometimes this bleeds into the product. Look at the fights over the iPhone. You may buy it but Apple thinks that they still own it. Back when they introduced the Mac, around 25 years ago, they tried to control it the same way. You violated your warranty just by plugging in a hard disk or printer that someone besides Apple made. More recently they've done it with music. Music you buy on iTunes will only play on an iPod. Apple will not license anyone else. Real Media made a way to convert files to Real's format without removing copy restrictions. Apple had a fit because people could then play music they bought from Apple on players from someone else.
It seems like buying an Apple includes a commitment to join the Cult of Steve. This includes putting up with the stuff I just mentioned and more. There also seems to be a requirement to evangelize. All of that is a lot more commitment than I want to put into an operating system.
So, why would I want to switch? Graphics? Yes, they are nice. Vista is better and Linux has some snazzy effects that will run on low-end hardware. There are a lot fewer viruses for the Mac but that isn't a big issue for me. I have good anti-virus software and I know what not to run. If I was really worried, I could move to Linux and keep my existing hardware.
Bottom line - I'd be paying money to be cool. That just isn't me.
Let's get the big reason out first - money. I've priced at Macs. They start at around $1,100. I can get a perfectly usable PC for half that. I realize that I can get a Mac mini for a lot less and hook up my own peripherals. It's still a lot of money since a comparably-priced PC will include everything.
Mac users can argue that their boxes are better built, will do more, etc. I don't care. A BMW owner could make the same points without getting me to buy a new, more expensive car.
This dovetails into the second big factor - OS/10 may be great but Windows XP is good enough. I can do everything I want a PC to do on XP. some things may be easier or work better on the Mac but it is not enough difference to switch.
There are hidden costs to making the switch. If I buy a new PC I can usually run all of my old software. If I buy an Apple I have to get new software. Some products don't have an Apple version. There are replacements but this could get expensive quickly. I have a lot of graphics software (all legal). Some I bought. Some I got free through special offers. I am sure I would lose a lot of it if I switched to Mac. Yes, thee is boot-camp. I could buy a version of Windows and run it on the Mac. All of my software would work but I'd be left with an expensive Windows PC. I think I could run it in a virtual session at a performance penalty and I'd probably still have to buy Windows.
A different hidden cost - hardware upgrades. I've gone through several PCs and I usually stretch their life by upgrading the disk, memory and possibly the video. I'm not sure how possible this is with the Mac.
Apple's ads don't help their case. They have several that imply that PCs can only be used for business. One in particular has the Mac guy showing off his digital pictures while the PC guy shows a spreadsheet graphing how much fun he had. This ad was so over the top wrong that my wife even complained about it. This raises the question - if I know that Apple is lying in some ads, why should I believe the other ads? Even without that, the PC guy is more likable than the Mac guy.
Then there is the whole cult of Steve thing. I have it on good authority that Steve Jobs is a jerk to work for. He is a control freak. usually this only affects people at Apple but sometimes this bleeds into the product. Look at the fights over the iPhone. You may buy it but Apple thinks that they still own it. Back when they introduced the Mac, around 25 years ago, they tried to control it the same way. You violated your warranty just by plugging in a hard disk or printer that someone besides Apple made. More recently they've done it with music. Music you buy on iTunes will only play on an iPod. Apple will not license anyone else. Real Media made a way to convert files to Real's format without removing copy restrictions. Apple had a fit because people could then play music they bought from Apple on players from someone else.
It seems like buying an Apple includes a commitment to join the Cult of Steve. This includes putting up with the stuff I just mentioned and more. There also seems to be a requirement to evangelize. All of that is a lot more commitment than I want to put into an operating system.
So, why would I want to switch? Graphics? Yes, they are nice. Vista is better and Linux has some snazzy effects that will run on low-end hardware. There are a lot fewer viruses for the Mac but that isn't a big issue for me. I have good anti-virus software and I know what not to run. If I was really worried, I could move to Linux and keep my existing hardware.
Bottom line - I'd be paying money to be cool. That just isn't me.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Whose iPod is It?
I lost my Sansa MP3 player while on vacation. I was seriously considering until Christmas to replace it and asking for an iPod Touch but Apple's recent antics with the iPhone have scared me away. While I understand why they did some of their actions their attitude still leaves me cold.
First there is the "iBricking" of the iPhone. A recent firmware upgrade disables iPhones that have been "unlocked" from AT&T. I can sort of understand this. They got a great deal from AT&T. Apple gets a portion of AT&T's monthly charge for the life of the contract. The update might not have even been Apple's idea. Someone from AT&T might have called Steve Jobs and reminded him that it was supposed to be impossible to switch from AT&T. There might even be a penalty clause in their contract.
But there are reports that there are flaws in the update and some phones that were never unlocked are also nonfunctional. That's not good.
Then there is Apple's undisguised greed. They started out by charging a lot more for the phone than they planned to sell it for. Why? Because they knew they have a devoted core that would buy it at any price. Once they worked through that core they lowered the price down to the real one.
This also shows up in the way they handled ringtones. Apple wants you to pay twice for each ringtone. First, you have to buy it from iTunes, then you have to pay to have it converted to a ringtone. Some people figured out how to get around this but the steps are too technical for most people. Regardless, Apple has changed the firmware around a few times to lock people into Apple ringtones. I can't image why they would bother except for the possibility of losing a few dollars licensing.
Beyond all of this, there is the insistence that every aspect of the iPhone should be controlled by Apple through iTunes. The phones have at least 8 gig but none of it can be accessed by the user. You cannot run third party applications on it. There are ways around this and Apple disabled them with the last update, also.
Supposedly the embargo on 3rd party software and storage is part of the AT&T contract. They didn't want a virus getting into the phone system. I might buy that if it were not for the iPod Touch.
In theory the iPod Touch is an iPhone without the phone part. I'm not sure if it is also missing the camera, Apple's web site mainly talks about the new features (the ability to buy music at Starbucks). So you might think that Apple would run more things on the stand-alone iPod than on the iPhone, right? Wrong. Some features are missing. At minimum you cannot update your calendar. Also, these are the only two units in the iPod line that will not let you use as a general purpose USB drive.
What I would like is a music player that lets me store files locally and access the web. The iPod only does some of this and I suspect that I would get frustrated before I got my money's worth.
In the meantime I picked up a Sansa Express. It's tiny - arounf 25% longer than a USB drive. It has all of the features of the bigger one except the screen for pictures and movies. Since I mainly use it for music, that's fine. It doesn't have the scroll wheel so navigation is a bit slower but otherwise it works just the same. One nice touch - it has a built-in USB plug and a short extension in case it doesn't fit. Like the other Sansas, I can use the Media Player to synchronize music or just copy and paste.
There is a reason that Sansa jumped to the #2 slot in MP3 players in a year. They don't have the cult appeal of Apple, they just work.
First there is the "iBricking" of the iPhone. A recent firmware upgrade disables iPhones that have been "unlocked" from AT&T. I can sort of understand this. They got a great deal from AT&T. Apple gets a portion of AT&T's monthly charge for the life of the contract. The update might not have even been Apple's idea. Someone from AT&T might have called Steve Jobs and reminded him that it was supposed to be impossible to switch from AT&T. There might even be a penalty clause in their contract.
But there are reports that there are flaws in the update and some phones that were never unlocked are also nonfunctional. That's not good.
Then there is Apple's undisguised greed. They started out by charging a lot more for the phone than they planned to sell it for. Why? Because they knew they have a devoted core that would buy it at any price. Once they worked through that core they lowered the price down to the real one.
This also shows up in the way they handled ringtones. Apple wants you to pay twice for each ringtone. First, you have to buy it from iTunes, then you have to pay to have it converted to a ringtone. Some people figured out how to get around this but the steps are too technical for most people. Regardless, Apple has changed the firmware around a few times to lock people into Apple ringtones. I can't image why they would bother except for the possibility of losing a few dollars licensing.
Beyond all of this, there is the insistence that every aspect of the iPhone should be controlled by Apple through iTunes. The phones have at least 8 gig but none of it can be accessed by the user. You cannot run third party applications on it. There are ways around this and Apple disabled them with the last update, also.
Supposedly the embargo on 3rd party software and storage is part of the AT&T contract. They didn't want a virus getting into the phone system. I might buy that if it were not for the iPod Touch.
In theory the iPod Touch is an iPhone without the phone part. I'm not sure if it is also missing the camera, Apple's web site mainly talks about the new features (the ability to buy music at Starbucks). So you might think that Apple would run more things on the stand-alone iPod than on the iPhone, right? Wrong. Some features are missing. At minimum you cannot update your calendar. Also, these are the only two units in the iPod line that will not let you use as a general purpose USB drive.
What I would like is a music player that lets me store files locally and access the web. The iPod only does some of this and I suspect that I would get frustrated before I got my money's worth.
In the meantime I picked up a Sansa Express. It's tiny - arounf 25% longer than a USB drive. It has all of the features of the bigger one except the screen for pictures and movies. Since I mainly use it for music, that's fine. It doesn't have the scroll wheel so navigation is a bit slower but otherwise it works just the same. One nice touch - it has a built-in USB plug and a short extension in case it doesn't fit. Like the other Sansas, I can use the Media Player to synchronize music or just copy and paste.
There is a reason that Sansa jumped to the #2 slot in MP3 players in a year. They don't have the cult appeal of Apple, they just work.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Vampires on TV
CBS has a new show about a vampire detective. How original. This has almost become a genre. Here are some previous shows with a similar premise:
Forever Knight
Nick Knight has been a vampire for 800 years and regretted it for most of that time. In the 20th century he decided to help people by becoming a policeman. The show started as a 1989 movie called Nick Knight staring Rick Springfield. In 1992 it was picked up as a series under the new name and with a new cast.
The show swiped a lot of its format from the better Highlander. As Nick investigated crimes in the present he would remember something from his past that had some bearing on the current case.
As a vampire, Nick could fly (usually implied by a shaky camera), had supernatural strength and could hypnotize people. He was immortal but had to avoid the sun. He got his blood supply from a pretty coroner who was trying to cure him.
Despite the main character, the show was primarily a detective show, not a vampire show.
Angel
A spin-off from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel was a vampire who, after more than a century of depravity, had been cursed by having his soul returned. Feeling regret for all of his past sins, he sought redemption by helping people. He ended up founding a detective agency with some friends.
The show ran for five seasons on WB. It changed focus a few times. A principal character was killed off half-way through the first season and replaced with another Buffy alumni. Other characters came and went.
Unlike Forever Knight, Angel's premise was saving the world from the supernatural and an evil law firm.
As a vampire, Angel was immortal and had supernatural strength. He had to keep out of the sun or burst into flames. He drank animal blood.
Blood Ties
This series is still running on Lifetime TV with the first season starting last March. It is based on a series of books by Tanya Huff featuring a private detective, Vicki Nelson who keeps running into supernatural cases and enlists the vampire Henry Fitzroy to help her.
Henry was strong and fast and fell asleep during the day. The sun could kill him. He got his blood supply from willing donors. In the book he was bi-sexual but in the TV series he is hetro and little is said about his source of blood. Henry is the illegitimate son of Henry VIII.
The focus of the series is solving supernatural crimes. Henry's main motivation for getting involved is his relationship with Vicki.
That brings us to Nightlife.
The vampire is a private detective. We don't learn why in the pilot. He is 90 years old and immortal. He get blood from a contact in the coroner's office. The sun makes him feel ill. He can move quickly and can identify people by scent.
The focus seems to be a detective show featuring a vampire. This brings up full circle back to Forever Knight which also started on CBS.
Forever Knight
Nick Knight has been a vampire for 800 years and regretted it for most of that time. In the 20th century he decided to help people by becoming a policeman. The show started as a 1989 movie called Nick Knight staring Rick Springfield. In 1992 it was picked up as a series under the new name and with a new cast.
The show swiped a lot of its format from the better Highlander. As Nick investigated crimes in the present he would remember something from his past that had some bearing on the current case.
As a vampire, Nick could fly (usually implied by a shaky camera), had supernatural strength and could hypnotize people. He was immortal but had to avoid the sun. He got his blood supply from a pretty coroner who was trying to cure him.
Despite the main character, the show was primarily a detective show, not a vampire show.
Angel
A spin-off from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel was a vampire who, after more than a century of depravity, had been cursed by having his soul returned. Feeling regret for all of his past sins, he sought redemption by helping people. He ended up founding a detective agency with some friends.
The show ran for five seasons on WB. It changed focus a few times. A principal character was killed off half-way through the first season and replaced with another Buffy alumni. Other characters came and went.
Unlike Forever Knight, Angel's premise was saving the world from the supernatural and an evil law firm.
As a vampire, Angel was immortal and had supernatural strength. He had to keep out of the sun or burst into flames. He drank animal blood.
Blood Ties
This series is still running on Lifetime TV with the first season starting last March. It is based on a series of books by Tanya Huff featuring a private detective, Vicki Nelson who keeps running into supernatural cases and enlists the vampire Henry Fitzroy to help her.
Henry was strong and fast and fell asleep during the day. The sun could kill him. He got his blood supply from willing donors. In the book he was bi-sexual but in the TV series he is hetro and little is said about his source of blood. Henry is the illegitimate son of Henry VIII.
The focus of the series is solving supernatural crimes. Henry's main motivation for getting involved is his relationship with Vicki.
That brings us to Nightlife.
The vampire is a private detective. We don't learn why in the pilot. He is 90 years old and immortal. He get blood from a contact in the coroner's office. The sun makes him feel ill. He can move quickly and can identify people by scent.
The focus seems to be a detective show featuring a vampire. This brings up full circle back to Forever Knight which also started on CBS.
Monday, September 24, 2007
A look Back at Heroes
The second season of Heroes starts tonight. While this became one of the best shows on TV last season, it got off to a rocky start. I'm hoping that they don't repeat that this year.
The show managed to ride the popularity of last year's X-Men release. The premise is pretty similar - people suddenly discover that they have super powers. In the X-Men they are mutants. In Heroes, they are "heroes".
The first few episodes were pretty grim and the characters were unlikeable. We had an arrogant politician, his bitchy mother, and his wimpy brother. There was an internet stripper who killed people in grisly ways. There was a junkie who painted disturbing visions of the future There was a serial killer who cut people's heads off and skooped out their brains. And there was a cheerleader who was apparently trying to kill herself and failing. The gore factor was the highest in any regular show I can remember. This reached a peak when Claire, the cheerleader, woke up in the morgue after an autopsy had cut open her chest (it was also the least convincing effect since the latex appliance didn't bent right when she sat up).
The main redeeming feature was Hiro - a Japanese office worker who discovered that he could affect time and space. After turning a clock back one second, he decided that he had a duty to help the world. Soon after, he traveled to New York's future and saw a major explosion. He quickly made it his mission to prevent the blast, dragging his co-worker along.
Ironically, Hiro has yet to accomplish any of his missions. He did not save the cheerleader, Peter did. He didn't stop the explosion, Nathan did. He hurt but didn't kill Sylar. He didn't even save a doomed waitress although he did make her last months more pleasant.
Several of the character's story threads never jelled. The telepathic cop started out as a major character but faded into the background. His main contribution was to show that making a loser telepathic doesn't change the fact that he's a loser. The same is true for Nikki and her family. One month she's hiding bodies, the next she's hunting her husband and child, then she's in jail, then she's a hired assassin, then she's trying to get her son back.
On the other hand, Peter became much more interesting as the show progressed. Besides Hiro, he is the only one who tries to help others with his gifts. Unlike Hiro, he did save the cheerleader.
The producers say that they listened to fan complaints and will address them in the new season. Story arcs will be shorter and fewer characters will be appearing per episode allowing more time for the characters who do appear. I hope that they got the right message. Lost claims to have heard viewer complaints about reruns but they got it wrong. We didn't want the show taken off the air except for new episodes, we just wanted more new episodes in a row.
We will see how Heroes does in season two.
The show managed to ride the popularity of last year's X-Men release. The premise is pretty similar - people suddenly discover that they have super powers. In the X-Men they are mutants. In Heroes, they are "heroes".
The first few episodes were pretty grim and the characters were unlikeable. We had an arrogant politician, his bitchy mother, and his wimpy brother. There was an internet stripper who killed people in grisly ways. There was a junkie who painted disturbing visions of the future There was a serial killer who cut people's heads off and skooped out their brains. And there was a cheerleader who was apparently trying to kill herself and failing. The gore factor was the highest in any regular show I can remember. This reached a peak when Claire, the cheerleader, woke up in the morgue after an autopsy had cut open her chest (it was also the least convincing effect since the latex appliance didn't bent right when she sat up).
The main redeeming feature was Hiro - a Japanese office worker who discovered that he could affect time and space. After turning a clock back one second, he decided that he had a duty to help the world. Soon after, he traveled to New York's future and saw a major explosion. He quickly made it his mission to prevent the blast, dragging his co-worker along.
Ironically, Hiro has yet to accomplish any of his missions. He did not save the cheerleader, Peter did. He didn't stop the explosion, Nathan did. He hurt but didn't kill Sylar. He didn't even save a doomed waitress although he did make her last months more pleasant.
Several of the character's story threads never jelled. The telepathic cop started out as a major character but faded into the background. His main contribution was to show that making a loser telepathic doesn't change the fact that he's a loser. The same is true for Nikki and her family. One month she's hiding bodies, the next she's hunting her husband and child, then she's in jail, then she's a hired assassin, then she's trying to get her son back.
On the other hand, Peter became much more interesting as the show progressed. Besides Hiro, he is the only one who tries to help others with his gifts. Unlike Hiro, he did save the cheerleader.
The producers say that they listened to fan complaints and will address them in the new season. Story arcs will be shorter and fewer characters will be appearing per episode allowing more time for the characters who do appear. I hope that they got the right message. Lost claims to have heard viewer complaints about reruns but they got it wrong. We didn't want the show taken off the air except for new episodes, we just wanted more new episodes in a row.
We will see how Heroes does in season two.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Talk Like a Pirate Day
Sept. 19 is Talk Like a Pirate Day. I'll use this as an excuse to comment on the Summer movies, one last time. The top three were Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, and Pirates 3 in that order - domestically. Internationally, they switch. Pirates came in at number one. Granted it's box office was $50 million less than Pirates 2 but that doesn't seem very important when the total take is around $950 million vs around $1 billion for the previous release.
I'm mainly bringing this up because various critics called Pirates a disappointment because its domestic take was down quite a bit. This was meant as a reflection on both movies. Since the overall take was up, that means that overseas ticket sales made up the difference.
Consider that a shot over the bow to the critics.
I'm mainly bringing this up because various critics called Pirates a disappointment because its domestic take was down quite a bit. This was meant as a reflection on both movies. Since the overall take was up, that means that overseas ticket sales made up the difference.
Consider that a shot over the bow to the critics.
Friday, September 07, 2007
The iFiasco
I know a couple of people with iPhones. One of them stood in line on opening day to get it.
They are proud of their gadgets. They show them off. They pull up YouTube videos or take your picture and show how they can link it to your phone number so it will show when you call. Sometimes they even make phone calls with the things.
I was never interested. At $600, I could buy a new PC and a new MP3 player and possibly have money left over for a low-end digital camera. None of those would obligate me to sign up for an expensive phone service (and pay a cancellation fee for my current service).
The iPhone owners didn't care about any of these things. They had their toys. But some discontent bubbled out out out the masses of iPhone owners. It turns out that the iPhone is a lousy phone. My dedicated phone is small, the battery lasts all day, and I can operate it one-handed. For commonly called numbers I can turn it on with my thumb, hit a button with my middle finger and tell the phone who I want to call and it will dial for me. With the iPhone, you have to use both hands and go through several motions.
Then there is AT&T. Their Internet service is dead slow, possibly too slow to be usable for many web pages. Their reputation took a major hit when it got out how poor their coverage is. Some states don't have any coverage to speak of. Others do but suffer from dropped calls (a columnist at Huffington complained that his conversations always ended with "Hello?" "Hello?")
Some people were buying the iPhone just to use as a wi-fi Internet device. I thought that it might be useful like that but the price was still much too high.
It turns out that a lot of people think like I do. Apple just introduced an iPod that is an iPhone without the phone part and it is only $300. That's still a lot of money to me but it is no longer out of the question.
It also appears that sales must have spiked then dropped fast because Apple dropped the price by $200. The phone that cost you $600 in June now costs $400. That has a lot of loyal Apple customers upset.
Everyone knows that technology changes. What is on the market today will either be cheaper next year or replaced by something more powerful. People accept that and factor in the cost of waiting when deciding to buy. The thing is, people expect these drops to take a year or more, not a few weeks. Apple has always charges a premium price but this time they admitted that the price was in the gouging range.
Keep in mind that Apple could sell the iPhone below cost and still come out ahead. They get a cut from AT&T's monthly bill so you continue to pay Apple as long as you keep your phone contract.
Apple set the original price too high. They want to attract the people who are not willing to pay $600 for a poor phone with a great interface.
There is no graceful way out of this. It only took a day for them to announce that current customers would get a $100 credit. Considering their margins, that probably will cost them at most $50 per phone. That's not very generous. And the group they offended includes the hard-core Apple fans. It's a wonder that their stock only dropped a little.
They are proud of their gadgets. They show them off. They pull up YouTube videos or take your picture and show how they can link it to your phone number so it will show when you call. Sometimes they even make phone calls with the things.
I was never interested. At $600, I could buy a new PC and a new MP3 player and possibly have money left over for a low-end digital camera. None of those would obligate me to sign up for an expensive phone service (and pay a cancellation fee for my current service).
The iPhone owners didn't care about any of these things. They had their toys. But some discontent bubbled out out out the masses of iPhone owners. It turns out that the iPhone is a lousy phone. My dedicated phone is small, the battery lasts all day, and I can operate it one-handed. For commonly called numbers I can turn it on with my thumb, hit a button with my middle finger and tell the phone who I want to call and it will dial for me. With the iPhone, you have to use both hands and go through several motions.
Then there is AT&T. Their Internet service is dead slow, possibly too slow to be usable for many web pages. Their reputation took a major hit when it got out how poor their coverage is. Some states don't have any coverage to speak of. Others do but suffer from dropped calls (a columnist at Huffington complained that his conversations always ended with "Hello?" "Hello?")
Some people were buying the iPhone just to use as a wi-fi Internet device. I thought that it might be useful like that but the price was still much too high.
It turns out that a lot of people think like I do. Apple just introduced an iPod that is an iPhone without the phone part and it is only $300. That's still a lot of money to me but it is no longer out of the question.
It also appears that sales must have spiked then dropped fast because Apple dropped the price by $200. The phone that cost you $600 in June now costs $400. That has a lot of loyal Apple customers upset.
Everyone knows that technology changes. What is on the market today will either be cheaper next year or replaced by something more powerful. People accept that and factor in the cost of waiting when deciding to buy. The thing is, people expect these drops to take a year or more, not a few weeks. Apple has always charges a premium price but this time they admitted that the price was in the gouging range.
Keep in mind that Apple could sell the iPhone below cost and still come out ahead. They get a cut from AT&T's monthly bill so you continue to pay Apple as long as you keep your phone contract.
Apple set the original price too high. They want to attract the people who are not willing to pay $600 for a poor phone with a great interface.
There is no graceful way out of this. It only took a day for them to announce that current customers would get a $100 credit. Considering their margins, that probably will cost them at most $50 per phone. That's not very generous. And the group they offended includes the hard-core Apple fans. It's a wonder that their stock only dropped a little.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Summer Review
The Summer movie season is over. The results are interesting.
Revenge of the threes. Six movies were the third installment of a series. Half of these ( Spider-Man, Shrek,and Pirates) broke $300 million. Of these, none were the best example of the series and none made as much money as the second installment but they still brought in just under a billion dollars in the US alone. Strangely, only Pirates has been singled out as a disappointment even though all three made the current top 10 box office with their second release and the box office of the three is within 10% of each other. Also, Pirates was the only one of the three that had a better third movie than the second.
Of the other 3rds, Bourne might break $200 million. Ocean's 13 only brought in $118 million - not bad but not what they were hoping for. The same is true for Rush Hour 3 at $118 million which is still pretty good for a 50-something action hero.
Along the same lines, Harry Potter 5 failed to break $300 million despite massive publicity from the book release and a solid movie but, at $280 million, the franchise hasn't run out of gas.
Source material. All of the top movies were adapted from some other medium but this year is surprising for the sources. We have Spider-Man (comic book), Shrek (children's book), Pirates (amusement park ride), Transformers (toy/comic book/tv show), and Harry Potter (children's book) before we get to the first original production - Ratatoille. The next two after that are Bourne (spy novel) and the Simpsons (cartoon) before adult films Knocked Up and Live Free or Die Hard . Clearly the days when studios had to release a violent R-rated movie in order to score big at the box office are over. Only one of these was rated R although most of the rest were PG13.
Disappointments. Ocean's 13 made money but didn't live up to expectations. Audiences didn't want to see remakes of the first movie. Evan Almighty did even worse, not quite breaking $100 million. No surprise here since the original had a different cast and premise and was a chick-flick/date movie. Evan had a completely different cast (the star was a bit-player in the original) and premise. It was aimed at families and Christians. Sicko was probably the biggest disappointment. It only brought in $23 million and failed to make national health care the topic of the year.
Overlooked. Ratatoille might break $200 million but it made less than Cars which made less than The Incredibles which made less than Finding Nemo. Ratatoille deserves better. Stardust has only brought in around $27 million. It is much better than that - one of the best movies of the year.
Revenge of the threes. Six movies were the third installment of a series. Half of these ( Spider-Man, Shrek,and Pirates) broke $300 million. Of these, none were the best example of the series and none made as much money as the second installment but they still brought in just under a billion dollars in the US alone. Strangely, only Pirates has been singled out as a disappointment even though all three made the current top 10 box office with their second release and the box office of the three is within 10% of each other. Also, Pirates was the only one of the three that had a better third movie than the second.
Of the other 3rds, Bourne might break $200 million. Ocean's 13 only brought in $118 million - not bad but not what they were hoping for. The same is true for Rush Hour 3 at $118 million which is still pretty good for a 50-something action hero.
Along the same lines, Harry Potter 5 failed to break $300 million despite massive publicity from the book release and a solid movie but, at $280 million, the franchise hasn't run out of gas.
Source material. All of the top movies were adapted from some other medium but this year is surprising for the sources. We have Spider-Man (comic book), Shrek (children's book), Pirates (amusement park ride), Transformers (toy/comic book/tv show), and Harry Potter (children's book) before we get to the first original production - Ratatoille. The next two after that are Bourne (spy novel) and the Simpsons (cartoon) before adult films Knocked Up and Live Free or Die Hard . Clearly the days when studios had to release a violent R-rated movie in order to score big at the box office are over. Only one of these was rated R although most of the rest were PG13.
Disappointments. Ocean's 13 made money but didn't live up to expectations. Audiences didn't want to see remakes of the first movie. Evan Almighty did even worse, not quite breaking $100 million. No surprise here since the original had a different cast and premise and was a chick-flick/date movie. Evan had a completely different cast (the star was a bit-player in the original) and premise. It was aimed at families and Christians. Sicko was probably the biggest disappointment. It only brought in $23 million and failed to make national health care the topic of the year.
Overlooked. Ratatoille might break $200 million but it made less than Cars which made less than The Incredibles which made less than Finding Nemo. Ratatoille deserves better. Stardust has only brought in around $27 million. It is much better than that - one of the best movies of the year.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Stardust
We finally had a chance to see Stardust this weekend. I would rate this as the summer's most overlooked movie and possibly its best (although I still rank Ratatouille pretty high).
The plot is complex. We have Tristan who is trying to win Victoria by fetching a fallen star for her. It turns out the fallen star fell in a magic kingdom where stars look like people, but with some unusual properties.
There is a trio of witches who want the star for some of these properties. There is also a quartet of princes (down from seven) who are fighting over who will inherit the kingdom.
The paths of all of these characters cross repeatedly.
The plot twists aren't that hard to see coming. I saw one of the biggest coming two hours before it happened. This doesn't matter. It's not the destination, it's the journey and this one is a lot of fun.
My prediction is that 20 years from now, this is the movie coming out in special collector's edition, not any of the big blockbusters of the Summer. This is the one that will attain cult status.
The plot is complex. We have Tristan who is trying to win Victoria by fetching a fallen star for her. It turns out the fallen star fell in a magic kingdom where stars look like people, but with some unusual properties.
There is a trio of witches who want the star for some of these properties. There is also a quartet of princes (down from seven) who are fighting over who will inherit the kingdom.
The paths of all of these characters cross repeatedly.
The plot twists aren't that hard to see coming. I saw one of the biggest coming two hours before it happened. This doesn't matter. It's not the destination, it's the journey and this one is a lot of fun.
My prediction is that 20 years from now, this is the movie coming out in special collector's edition, not any of the big blockbusters of the Summer. This is the one that will attain cult status.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Best and Worst of Time on TVq
I saw a local newspaper column yesterday complain about this being TV's dead month. It may be if you limit yourself to network TV. Most of the good shows have been retired for the Summer and the replacements aren't any good.
Basic cable, on the other hand, is at its best. There's at least one good thing on every weeknight.
Monday:
History Detectives. I'm cheating a bit here since this is PBS instead of cable. The show takes four experts from Antique Roadshow. Each of them investigates an item with an interesting story to see if the story is true.
Tuesday:
Eureka. The adventures of a sheriff in a small town, but, unlike Mayberry, this in the smartest town in the country full of people doing top secret and dangerous work for the government. THings go wrong regularly and the sheriff has to figure out how to clean it up, often saving the town or the world in the process.
Wednesday:
Mythbusters. Still going strong.
Thursday:
Who Wants to be a Superhero? The best reality/game show on TV. It's goofy enough to work as a parody of Survivor but the contestants are so likable you hate to see anyone eliminated (except the bald guy - you don't back-talk to Stan Lee).
Friday:
Dr. Who. More fun than the original series (that one's tough) with great production values but still enough cheese to be enjoyable.
Flash Gordon. I missed the pilot so this one is still a question
Monk. The best detective show since Columbo. The show has been on the decline, concentrating more on putting Monk in uncomfortable situations than in having a real mystery.
Psych. The second best detective show since Columbo. A fake psychic and his buddy Gus solve crimes while pretending that the answers just come to them.
No wonder network TV is having trouble. They no longer have a monopoly on quality programming.
Basic cable, on the other hand, is at its best. There's at least one good thing on every weeknight.
Monday:
History Detectives. I'm cheating a bit here since this is PBS instead of cable. The show takes four experts from Antique Roadshow. Each of them investigates an item with an interesting story to see if the story is true.
Tuesday:
Eureka. The adventures of a sheriff in a small town, but, unlike Mayberry, this in the smartest town in the country full of people doing top secret and dangerous work for the government. THings go wrong regularly and the sheriff has to figure out how to clean it up, often saving the town or the world in the process.
Wednesday:
Mythbusters. Still going strong.
Thursday:
Who Wants to be a Superhero? The best reality/game show on TV. It's goofy enough to work as a parody of Survivor but the contestants are so likable you hate to see anyone eliminated (except the bald guy - you don't back-talk to Stan Lee).
Friday:
Dr. Who. More fun than the original series (that one's tough) with great production values but still enough cheese to be enjoyable.
Flash Gordon. I missed the pilot so this one is still a question
Monk. The best detective show since Columbo. The show has been on the decline, concentrating more on putting Monk in uncomfortable situations than in having a real mystery.
Psych. The second best detective show since Columbo. A fake psychic and his buddy Gus solve crimes while pretending that the answers just come to them.
No wonder network TV is having trouble. They no longer have a monopoly on quality programming.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Who Wants To Be A Superhero?
The second season of Who Wants to be a Superhero started last week. The show is off to a good start. To me, this is the perfect reality show. The people are not in it for the money - there isn't any. They are not making alliances or practicing politics. Most important - they are being judged on their character.
One woman slipped and fell during a test. She was distraught. Later, Stan Lee singled her out for praise. Yes, she slipped, but she got right back up again.
This show is tricky. The tests are seldom what they seem and often they are not even announced.
At the same time, the whole show has a silliness to it that keeps it from getting grim. You just can't take most of these heroes seriously. Heck - one of them is dressed as a french maid.
One woman slipped and fell during a test. She was distraught. Later, Stan Lee singled her out for praise. Yes, she slipped, but she got right back up again.
This show is tricky. The tests are seldom what they seem and often they are not even announced.
At the same time, the whole show has a silliness to it that keeps it from getting grim. You just can't take most of these heroes seriously. Heck - one of them is dressed as a french maid.
Monday, July 23, 2007
RIP Birdman
The Cartoon Channel killed Birdman last night.
The character began in the 1960s when superheroes ruled Saturday morning. Space Ghost was Hanna-Barberra's first realistic superhero. He was a big success and the next year saw nothing but superheroes. Space Ghost was in the future so they flipped it and gave us Mightor, a caveman with a club that could project energy beams. There was Shazam, a genie who fought evil sorcerers; the Herculoids a group of super-powered animals who fought off invading aliens; Atom Ant, an insect-sized hero; the Incredibles, a super-powered rock band; Frankenstein Jr, a super-powered robot; the Galaxy Trio; Underdog; Mighty Mouse; and Birdman.
Unlike other heroes, Birdman used wings to fly. He was solar-powered, able to project energy beams and force fields. He received assignments from a James Bond-inspired character with a tuxedo and an eyepatch who went by the code name Falcon 7. Birdman also had an intelligent eagle helper and both a Birdboy and a Birdgirl.
None of these series lasted to the following year. They were all canceled after an outcry about violence on TV.
Years later Space Ghost reappeared as a talk show host. Two of his villains were with him, one as the musician and the other as the producer/director. The show was a hit and launched Cartoon Chanel's Adult Swim. Birdman popped up a couple of times as a down-on-his-luck hero who needed a job.
Years later Birdman got his own show. This time he was Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law. He worked for Phil Ken Seben (Falcon 7). He handled cases for the rest of the Hanna-Barberra universe. Boo Boo Bear was arrested as the Unibooboo Bomber. Fred Flintstone was a mob boss. It was often (but not always) brilliant.
But all good things come to an end and they gave him a great send-off. First, because of a technicality, he had to re-try all of his cases at once. Then he had to revert to being a superhero to fight a major villain.
Then he got run over by a bus.
Good bye, Harvey. I'll miss you.
The character began in the 1960s when superheroes ruled Saturday morning. Space Ghost was Hanna-Barberra's first realistic superhero. He was a big success and the next year saw nothing but superheroes. Space Ghost was in the future so they flipped it and gave us Mightor, a caveman with a club that could project energy beams. There was Shazam, a genie who fought evil sorcerers; the Herculoids a group of super-powered animals who fought off invading aliens; Atom Ant, an insect-sized hero; the Incredibles, a super-powered rock band; Frankenstein Jr, a super-powered robot; the Galaxy Trio; Underdog; Mighty Mouse; and Birdman.
Unlike other heroes, Birdman used wings to fly. He was solar-powered, able to project energy beams and force fields. He received assignments from a James Bond-inspired character with a tuxedo and an eyepatch who went by the code name Falcon 7. Birdman also had an intelligent eagle helper and both a Birdboy and a Birdgirl.
None of these series lasted to the following year. They were all canceled after an outcry about violence on TV.
Years later Space Ghost reappeared as a talk show host. Two of his villains were with him, one as the musician and the other as the producer/director. The show was a hit and launched Cartoon Chanel's Adult Swim. Birdman popped up a couple of times as a down-on-his-luck hero who needed a job.
Years later Birdman got his own show. This time he was Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law. He worked for Phil Ken Seben (Falcon 7). He handled cases for the rest of the Hanna-Barberra universe. Boo Boo Bear was arrested as the Unibooboo Bomber. Fred Flintstone was a mob boss. It was often (but not always) brilliant.
But all good things come to an end and they gave him a great send-off. First, because of a technicality, he had to re-try all of his cases at once. Then he had to revert to being a superhero to fight a major villain.
Then he got run over by a bus.
Good bye, Harvey. I'll miss you.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Rats!
Disney hyped the new Pixar release so hard that we were in no hurry to see Ratatouille so we waited until the 4th of July. In fact, we almost went to see Pirates again.
The quick take on Ratatouille is that Pixar has the animation Oscar in the bag. This is the best animated movie to come out in years - possibly the best since director Brad Bird's Incredibles.
You've seen the previews (if not the movie) so I don't have to say much about the premise. A gifted rat named Remy wants to cook. He joins forces with a low-level employee of Gusteau's, a formerly five star restaurant that now only has three stars.
The action scenes are amazing as is the animation. CGI has moved a long way past Toy Story. The movie captures the best of traditional animation and CGI.
While most of Pixar's movies have humans in some capacity, this is only Pixar's second movie to feature humans (and Brad Bird directed both). Hopefully this is will be a trend in the future. Too many CGI movies feature talking animals because it is easier.
One interesting conceit in Ratatouille, the rats can talk to themselves and understand humans but humans cannot understand rats. When humans are present, the movie uses rat sounds. Last year's Happy Feet did something similar.
Pixar's dedication to their art is impressive. They studied with real chefs and all of the food looks like what it is supposed to be. Watching the movie is guaranteed to make you hungry.
The quick take on Ratatouille is that Pixar has the animation Oscar in the bag. This is the best animated movie to come out in years - possibly the best since director Brad Bird's Incredibles.
You've seen the previews (if not the movie) so I don't have to say much about the premise. A gifted rat named Remy wants to cook. He joins forces with a low-level employee of Gusteau's, a formerly five star restaurant that now only has three stars.
The action scenes are amazing as is the animation. CGI has moved a long way past Toy Story. The movie captures the best of traditional animation and CGI.
While most of Pixar's movies have humans in some capacity, this is only Pixar's second movie to feature humans (and Brad Bird directed both). Hopefully this is will be a trend in the future. Too many CGI movies feature talking animals because it is easier.
One interesting conceit in Ratatouille, the rats can talk to themselves and understand humans but humans cannot understand rats. When humans are present, the movie uses rat sounds. Last year's Happy Feet did something similar.
Pixar's dedication to their art is impressive. They studied with real chefs and all of the food looks like what it is supposed to be. Watching the movie is guaranteed to make you hungry.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
PotC Inspirations
I was watching 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and I was struck by the number of images from this movie that were repeated in last year's Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Man's Chest. Both feature a ship that resembles a fish and can move beneath the ocean. Both Davy Jones and Nemo have a large organ in their cabin which they play for consolation. Both movies feature an attack by a giant squid. We even see the mouth of each.
Surprisingly, both movies have cannibals and a scene with the cannibals chasing the hero across a beach.
20,000 Leagues was a big Disney hit when it came out in 1954 and inspired one of the rides at Disneyland so it is not surprising that the writers worked some of it in.
Surprisingly, both movies have cannibals and a scene with the cannibals chasing the hero across a beach.
20,000 Leagues was a big Disney hit when it came out in 1954 and inspired one of the rides at Disneyland so it is not surprising that the writers worked some of it in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)