Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Is South Korea INSANE?
Why haven't they capitalized on this yet? All they have to do is announce that they've demolished the imaginary wall (maybe release some pictures of something concrete being destroyed) and then sell the pieces! Imagine being able to say that you own a genuine piece of an imaginary wall! Not only is there a fortune to be made here, but wouldn't it be fun to see what North Korea would say then?
I think I've got a New Year's resolution after all
Interesting article at the New York Times today. I can especially relate to this part:
Hence you’re more likely to agree to a commitment next year, like giving a speech, that you would turn down if asked to find time for it in the next month. This produces what researchers call the “Yes ... Damn!” effect: when the speech comes due next year, you bitterly discover you’re still as busy as ever.
. . . when people were asked to anticipate how much extra money and time they would have in the future, they realistically assumed that money would be tight, but they expected free time to magically materialize.
Hence you’re more likely to agree to a commitment next year, like giving a speech, that you would turn down if asked to find time for it in the next month. This produces what researchers call the “Yes ... Damn!” effect: when the speech comes due next year, you bitterly discover you’re still as busy as ever.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Star Trek Redux
Having gotten the fangirl out of my system (at least for the moment), I wanted to go back and comment on the new Star Trek movie again in writer mode. Normally, when they make a movie from an old TV show, old enough that they're not using the original actors, it (to put it not too delicately) stinks up the theaters and quickly fades into the oblivion of the $5 DVD rack at Walmart. This, in my opinion, is why:
You get Hollywood making a movie about an old TV show, they tend to think it's all about the machinery or the special effects or the concept. So they go, "Oh, Dukes of Hazzard, it's all about the car!" or "Oh, Starsky and Hutch, it's all about the car AND, boy can we have fun ridiculing the clothes and hairdos!" or, "Oh, I Spy, it's all about the gadgets!" Then they cast Owen Wilson and a guy with a darker complexion (don't get me wrong, I *like* Owen Wilson), give them some wacky dialogue and big WOW special effects and go, "Voila!"
Then they wonder why the movie sucked.
What could have gone wrong? You've got the car! You've got stuff blowing up! You've got Owen Wilson and Eddie Murphy/Ben Stiller! What happened?
What happened is simple. It's NOT about the car! Every story -- EVERY story! -- is about the characters. Even the most iconic *things* in television history -- The General Lee, Maxwell Smart's shoe phone, even the starship Enterprise -- are only accessories for the characters. That's why the Star Trek franchise was able to blow up the original Enterprise and go on to make eight more movies (and counting).
The reason they make classic TV shows into movies in the first place is to capitalize on all the fans who still fondly remember the original show. Then, the first thing they do, is alienate them by blowing off the most important PART of that show. It's like you've been invited home for a visit and when you get there, everything's brighter and shinier than you remember, which is probably cool, but then you realize you don't know anybody. And, seriously! If they're not going to bother with the original characters, why not just go wild and shoot an entirely *original* movie? It's really not necessary to rape a classic TV show, even on the rare occasions when the bastard version is profitable (see Mission: Impossible).
That's where the new Star Trek movie got it right. They got the CHARACTERS right. If you grew up watching these people "boldly go", you can put in this movie and you will RECOGNIZE them. That's why fans are so enthused about it, and that's why it's made something like three times its operating budget.
As a writer, I think this is a strong validation of something we've all heard time and time again. In order to hold the hearts and minds of the reader, every story --EVERY STORY -- has to be character driven. Nifty concepts and shiny exposition is never enough. It takes more than Owen Wilson, charming though he is.
You get Hollywood making a movie about an old TV show, they tend to think it's all about the machinery or the special effects or the concept. So they go, "Oh, Dukes of Hazzard, it's all about the car!" or "Oh, Starsky and Hutch, it's all about the car AND, boy can we have fun ridiculing the clothes and hairdos!" or, "Oh, I Spy, it's all about the gadgets!" Then they cast Owen Wilson and a guy with a darker complexion (don't get me wrong, I *like* Owen Wilson), give them some wacky dialogue and big WOW special effects and go, "Voila!"
Then they wonder why the movie sucked.
What could have gone wrong? You've got the car! You've got stuff blowing up! You've got Owen Wilson and Eddie Murphy/Ben Stiller! What happened?
What happened is simple. It's NOT about the car! Every story -- EVERY story! -- is about the characters. Even the most iconic *things* in television history -- The General Lee, Maxwell Smart's shoe phone, even the starship Enterprise -- are only accessories for the characters. That's why the Star Trek franchise was able to blow up the original Enterprise and go on to make eight more movies (and counting).
The reason they make classic TV shows into movies in the first place is to capitalize on all the fans who still fondly remember the original show. Then, the first thing they do, is alienate them by blowing off the most important PART of that show. It's like you've been invited home for a visit and when you get there, everything's brighter and shinier than you remember, which is probably cool, but then you realize you don't know anybody. And, seriously! If they're not going to bother with the original characters, why not just go wild and shoot an entirely *original* movie? It's really not necessary to rape a classic TV show, even on the rare occasions when the bastard version is profitable (see Mission: Impossible).
That's where the new Star Trek movie got it right. They got the CHARACTERS right. If you grew up watching these people "boldly go", you can put in this movie and you will RECOGNIZE them. That's why fans are so enthused about it, and that's why it's made something like three times its operating budget.
As a writer, I think this is a strong validation of something we've all heard time and time again. In order to hold the hearts and minds of the reader, every story --EVERY STORY -- has to be character driven. Nifty concepts and shiny exposition is never enough. It takes more than Owen Wilson, charming though he is.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Star Trek
Okay, so I finally got around to watching the new Star Trek movie and I just have one little comment to make:
THAT WAS SO TOTALLY FRICKIN' AWESOME! I LOVED IT! I LOVED THE ENDING WHEN EVERYTHING CAME TOGETHER AND EVERYONE WAS ON THE ENTERPRISE AND WHERE THEY BELONG AND IT'S LIKE THE BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING! I LOVED THAT THEY GOT ALL THE CHARACTERS RIGHT! SCOTTY WAS SOOO SCOTTY AND BONES WAS PERFECTLY BONES AND SULU AND CHEKOV WERE JUST PERFECT AND I LOVED CHEKOV'S AND SCOTTY'S ACCENTS AND BONES SAYING, "I'M A DOCTOR, NOT A . . . ." AND SCOTTY SAYING, "I'M GIVIN' 'ER ALL SHE'S GOT, CAPTAIN!" AND EVERYTHING WAS JUST AWESOME AND I DIDN'T EVEN MIND IT ALL BEING AU SINCE THEY EXPLAINED HOW/WHY IT WAS AU AND (it was a little bit weird about the thing with Spock and Uhura but . . . ) IT WAS AWESOME AND I LOVED IT!!!
I'm ready for the sequel now.
(We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging. /fangirl)
THAT WAS SO TOTALLY FRICKIN' AWESOME! I LOVED IT! I LOVED THE ENDING WHEN EVERYTHING CAME TOGETHER AND EVERYONE WAS ON THE ENTERPRISE AND WHERE THEY BELONG AND IT'S LIKE THE BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING! I LOVED THAT THEY GOT ALL THE CHARACTERS RIGHT! SCOTTY WAS SOOO SCOTTY AND BONES WAS PERFECTLY BONES AND SULU AND CHEKOV WERE JUST PERFECT AND I LOVED CHEKOV'S AND SCOTTY'S ACCENTS AND BONES SAYING, "I'M A DOCTOR, NOT A . . . ." AND SCOTTY SAYING, "I'M GIVIN' 'ER ALL SHE'S GOT, CAPTAIN!" AND EVERYTHING WAS JUST AWESOME AND I DIDN'T EVEN MIND IT ALL BEING AU SINCE THEY EXPLAINED HOW/WHY IT WAS AU AND (it was a little bit weird about the thing with Spock and Uhura but . . . ) IT WAS AWESOME AND I LOVED IT!!!
I'm ready for the sequel now.
(We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging. /fangirl)
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Holy Cow?
Some people are claiming this newborn calf is a sign from God. Only, no one's sure what, exactly, it's a sign of.
Personally, I don't see a cross on it's forehead. I see a ballerina. Her hair is in a bun and she's standing on tiptoe (would that be en pointe?) on her left foot, facing the calf's right ear, with her right leg pointed back and to the right (away from the viewer). Oh, and her arms are circled around in front of her. I know there's a name for that pose, but I don't know enough about ballet to know what it is.
Personally, I don't see a cross on it's forehead. I see a ballerina. Her hair is in a bun and she's standing on tiptoe (would that be en pointe?) on her left foot, facing the calf's right ear, with her right leg pointed back and to the right (away from the viewer). Oh, and her arms are circled around in front of her. I know there's a name for that pose, but I don't know enough about ballet to know what it is.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
I have a problem
A couple of weeks ago I finally found a refrigerator small enough to fit in my little house. It's adorable, a Frigidaire that's old enough, probably, to count as an antique. I got it at a used furniture store in Warsaw and last Friday morning, before I went to work, my nephew Joe and I took his truck over and picked it up. We brought it home, wrestled it into the house (it's really heavy!) plugged it in and then I had to run to get to work on time.
Now, I have three cats, two queens and a tom. And, because I always try to be a basically kind person, I'm not going to say Blondie, the tom, is an abject coward. Let us say, instead, that he is cautious and discrete. Discrete as in, at the first sign of anyone but me on the property, he bolts for the bed, slithers under the covers, and cowers at the foot until they are gone and it's safe to come out. So, as you might expect, while Joe and I were fighting with the refrigerator, Blondie was keeping his head down.
I wasn't surprised that the move was traumatic for him, but I was dismayed to realize, when I got home, that he was still afraid of the refrigerator! (And he still is.) Every time I go anywhere near it, he panics and hides. Finally I figured out, I think, what he's thinking. I just don't know what to do about it. See, with his head under the covers, he never saw my nephew leave.
So, how do I convince him that I'm not keeping Joe in the refrigerator, waiting to get him? :-/
Now, I have three cats, two queens and a tom. And, because I always try to be a basically kind person, I'm not going to say Blondie, the tom, is an abject coward. Let us say, instead, that he is cautious and discrete. Discrete as in, at the first sign of anyone but me on the property, he bolts for the bed, slithers under the covers, and cowers at the foot until they are gone and it's safe to come out. So, as you might expect, while Joe and I were fighting with the refrigerator, Blondie was keeping his head down.
I wasn't surprised that the move was traumatic for him, but I was dismayed to realize, when I got home, that he was still afraid of the refrigerator! (And he still is.) Every time I go anywhere near it, he panics and hides. Finally I figured out, I think, what he's thinking. I just don't know what to do about it. See, with his head under the covers, he never saw my nephew leave.
So, how do I convince him that I'm not keeping Joe in the refrigerator, waiting to get him? :-/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)