I'm not going to go into detail because I don't want to spoil it for anyone. So I'm going to be pretty general in my statements here.
I've often written about how difficult it is to maintain great quality in sequels, particularly when the first installment was brilliant and somewhat unexpected. When you set the bar that high—and therefore people's expectations as well—it becomes hard to clear it. But Stranger Things 2 does, I think, the best it possibly could to meet the stellar quality of its first season.
That's not to say it's perfect. But you can see they took care not to coast on their good reputation. Real work went into this.
Encapsulated so as not to spoil it for anyone: ST2 returns to Hawkins, and the Upside Down is sort of . . . leaking? The gate sealing it off is weakening. Problems ensue.
I did think it was interesting that, in order to make Steve not appear to be quite so much of a jerk, they simply introduced an ever bigger jerk character. Everything is relative, I suppose. We all exist somewhere on a jerk scale of one kind or another in this world.
There is real tension in this season, too, and some honest-to-goodness horror. Sure, some of it plays like Jurassic Park, but I like JP, so . . .
Did I enjoy it as much as the first season? Not quite. But again, some of that goes back to the first season being a novelty, an unexpected good fortune. I think ST2 is a worthy successor. That's really all we could ask for, or even hope for. It's easy for shows (*cough*Sherlock*cough*) to be pleased with themselves after a brilliant start and just know that people will watch no matter what. It takes commitment to the story, the characters, the actors, and the audience to continue to deliver quality work. For that much, I'm grateful to the Duffer Brothers and their team for putting in the effort.
10.31.2017
10.30.2017
Weinstein et al
I'm going to make what many will consider a distasteful analogy. But you've heard the saying in airports and at train stations: "See something? Say something."
I've been fortunate, I suppose, never to have brushed up against Weinstein back when I was navigating a young and hopeful career in "the industry." But for those who have worked with him—and especially you men, but in some cases also women—did you ever see anything? Hear anything? Did your spidey senses ever tingle? If so, and you did nothing . . . If you brushed it off . . . Then you are complicit.
Because it is rather like the airport or the train station. If you see something and don't speak up and that plane goes down or that train derails—that's a little bit on you. And your lack of action impacts the people on the plane or train, and all their loved ones. That selfish little piece of you that stayed silent—that helped the terrorists.
Yeah, I said terrorists. Because there is a war of terror against women, and sometimes also against men. Against homosexuals and people of color and just any minority group, really. This is true in the world, and Hollywood is a microcosm of it.
After the Weinstein story broke, more allegations began to spill about others in the industry. I'm going to make another analogy here. Say you have a lush forest. It's been standing for a long time. But then one of the biggest trees has a disease. "We need to take down that tree," the park rangers say. And then they discover the disease has actually spread to a lot of the trees. Now the rangers hesitate. That's a lot of trees to cut down. It won't leave much forest. What will people do for shade? What will animals do for homes? But that disease isn't going to go away. If you leave those trees, the disease will just spread to newer, younger trees.
You've got to cut them down. Better yet, pull them by the roots so they don't regrow. Then replant with hardier stock. It will leave a very young forest, but a healthier one.
For those of you who don't follow, the casting couch mentality in Hollywood needs to be yanked up and tossed out. A new way of thinking and behaving needs to take its place. That's scary, to overhaul an industry that's used to doing things a certain way. The people on top don't want a shift of power. Of course they don't. They're the tall trees that get all the sun. But some of them are diseased and need to go. It's that simple and that difficult at the same time. A lot of hard work ahead, but the forest and the world will be better for it.
I've been fortunate, I suppose, never to have brushed up against Weinstein back when I was navigating a young and hopeful career in "the industry." But for those who have worked with him—and especially you men, but in some cases also women—did you ever see anything? Hear anything? Did your spidey senses ever tingle? If so, and you did nothing . . . If you brushed it off . . . Then you are complicit.
Because it is rather like the airport or the train station. If you see something and don't speak up and that plane goes down or that train derails—that's a little bit on you. And your lack of action impacts the people on the plane or train, and all their loved ones. That selfish little piece of you that stayed silent—that helped the terrorists.
Yeah, I said terrorists. Because there is a war of terror against women, and sometimes also against men. Against homosexuals and people of color and just any minority group, really. This is true in the world, and Hollywood is a microcosm of it.
After the Weinstein story broke, more allegations began to spill about others in the industry. I'm going to make another analogy here. Say you have a lush forest. It's been standing for a long time. But then one of the biggest trees has a disease. "We need to take down that tree," the park rangers say. And then they discover the disease has actually spread to a lot of the trees. Now the rangers hesitate. That's a lot of trees to cut down. It won't leave much forest. What will people do for shade? What will animals do for homes? But that disease isn't going to go away. If you leave those trees, the disease will just spread to newer, younger trees.
You've got to cut them down. Better yet, pull them by the roots so they don't regrow. Then replant with hardier stock. It will leave a very young forest, but a healthier one.
For those of you who don't follow, the casting couch mentality in Hollywood needs to be yanked up and tossed out. A new way of thinking and behaving needs to take its place. That's scary, to overhaul an industry that's used to doing things a certain way. The people on top don't want a shift of power. Of course they don't. They're the tall trees that get all the sun. But some of them are diseased and need to go. It's that simple and that difficult at the same time. A lot of hard work ahead, but the forest and the world will be better for it.
10.23.2017
Movies: The Princess Bride
At the risk of being incredibly unpopular, I have to say . . . I only kind of like this movie.
The Princess Bride came out when I was 11. I didn't see it then. I've watched it maybe twice in my life, the first time while I was an undergraduate. Maybe it was the hype (everyone always saying how wonderful this movie was), or maybe it was the venue (someone's apartment; I was with a church group), but it just didn't enthrall me. It failed to charm me the way it seems to have charmed so many others. I didn't find it funny or clever or, well, much of anything.
I didn't hate it. I just didn't love it much either.
Later my husband sat me down to watch it again in the belief that I'd somehow just not fully absorbed it properly. But I had the same feeling the second time. He adores The Princess Bride. I . . . don't.
I only bring it up because I'm behind on my podcast listening and just got around to Pop Culture Happy Hour discussing the 30-year anniversary of the film. They gushed as per expectations, in particular over Cary Elwes, whom I've never found attractive, so he really doesn't do anything to boost the movie for me. I find a lot of the famous quotes just plain annoying, but that might be from repetition.
I've never read the book either. Maybe I'd like it more?
Sigh. I think, really, I'm mostly indifferent to The Princess Bride. I couldn't invest in any of the characters, and I didn't feel any chemistry between the leads. I did like the bits with Peter Falk and Fred Savage, if that counts for anything. ::shrug::
The Princess Bride came out when I was 11. I didn't see it then. I've watched it maybe twice in my life, the first time while I was an undergraduate. Maybe it was the hype (everyone always saying how wonderful this movie was), or maybe it was the venue (someone's apartment; I was with a church group), but it just didn't enthrall me. It failed to charm me the way it seems to have charmed so many others. I didn't find it funny or clever or, well, much of anything.
I didn't hate it. I just didn't love it much either.
Later my husband sat me down to watch it again in the belief that I'd somehow just not fully absorbed it properly. But I had the same feeling the second time. He adores The Princess Bride. I . . . don't.
I only bring it up because I'm behind on my podcast listening and just got around to Pop Culture Happy Hour discussing the 30-year anniversary of the film. They gushed as per expectations, in particular over Cary Elwes, whom I've never found attractive, so he really doesn't do anything to boost the movie for me. I find a lot of the famous quotes just plain annoying, but that might be from repetition.
I've never read the book either. Maybe I'd like it more?
Sigh. I think, really, I'm mostly indifferent to The Princess Bride. I couldn't invest in any of the characters, and I didn't feel any chemistry between the leads. I did like the bits with Peter Falk and Fred Savage, if that counts for anything. ::shrug::
10.17.2017
Television: The Orville, "Krill"
Aren't krill the thing whales eat? Like, something in the sea? I'm too lazy to go look it up because it's not that important to me, but it's what I think of every time I hear "krill." Even if I did look it up, and even if it isn't true, I'd still think it.
Anyway. This episode. We learn Bortus can eat almost anything, I guess? But the bulk of the story is Ed and Gordon masquerading as Krill so as to learn more about their culture—specifically their holy book—in the hopes of finding common ground and forging peace.
I have some basic, logistical issues. For one, Ed and Gordon spend time talking about how they don't know any Krill names and so don't know what fake names to use while in disguise. Okay, so... They've been briefed on the fact that the Krill are very religious and that their belief system tells them they are better than all other forms of life and therefore it is okay to kill other species and take their planets and resources. They know this much about the Krill but no names? Not even the name of the Krill god (which turns out to be Avis)? Can they read Krill? If so, how did they learn, and if not, how will they read the snaps of the holy book Ed is supposed to take? There just doesn't seem to be a lot of internal logic about the way humans and Krill interact since the Krill are always aggressive. Surely the Union has captured Krill before and learned a few things? I dunno. It's really unclear.
The underlying story of how the Krill's religion is the cause of all the problems is... troublesome. We're given little to no sense of the Krill as having any good qualities, and this seems tied to their beliefs. True, the Krill children seem more open minded, though they are clearly being indoctrinated. But the subtext here is not very, well, sub. It's pretty heavy handed and paints all beliefs with one brush. The idea that in the future humans will not have religion but will still watch Seinfeld is just dumb. I'm not saying it can't happen, but if they want me to believe it, I want more information. How do they explain the Charlie Brown Christmas special if no one is Christian any more? Or have all things that have any religious "taint" been banned, eliminated? Are we supposed to see ourselves [the humans, the Union] as better than the Krill for having risen above religion? If we do that, aren't we just as bad as the Krill in thinking we are superior?
Oh, but we don't go killing people and taking their stuff, you say. Except in this episode they totally do.
But we do it for the good of... Of what? Our own race and allies? Yup. So do the Krill.
But we do it to protect our own. We don't start fights but we end them. Fair enough. But you're asking me to believe the Krill use their religion as the reason they start fights. Or the excuse. Removing their beliefs wouldn't change their behavior, I don't think. They'd find another reason/excuse to take what they want. We see people with money do that all the time, people with better technology—anyone with the upper hand. Religion doesn't have to be the reason. It can be a reason, but it's almost never the only reason.
I didn't mean for this to turn into a treatise. I myself am not religious, though I grew up in a religious household. I know that strong beliefs can cause problems, but not believing isn't the solution. I think it matters what you emphasize, whether it's the "love thy neighbor" and "judge not lest ye be judged" versus "an eye for an eye" or whatever the verse is that says to kill everyone who doesn't believe the same thing as you. Like, if a majority of the Union converted and worshiped Avis, would the Krill still kill people? Is this really about the belief or is it a racial thing?
Whatever. This episode had some truly tense moments, I'll give it that. And it certainly made me think.
Anyway. This episode. We learn Bortus can eat almost anything, I guess? But the bulk of the story is Ed and Gordon masquerading as Krill so as to learn more about their culture—specifically their holy book—in the hopes of finding common ground and forging peace.
I have some basic, logistical issues. For one, Ed and Gordon spend time talking about how they don't know any Krill names and so don't know what fake names to use while in disguise. Okay, so... They've been briefed on the fact that the Krill are very religious and that their belief system tells them they are better than all other forms of life and therefore it is okay to kill other species and take their planets and resources. They know this much about the Krill but no names? Not even the name of the Krill god (which turns out to be Avis)? Can they read Krill? If so, how did they learn, and if not, how will they read the snaps of the holy book Ed is supposed to take? There just doesn't seem to be a lot of internal logic about the way humans and Krill interact since the Krill are always aggressive. Surely the Union has captured Krill before and learned a few things? I dunno. It's really unclear.
The underlying story of how the Krill's religion is the cause of all the problems is... troublesome. We're given little to no sense of the Krill as having any good qualities, and this seems tied to their beliefs. True, the Krill children seem more open minded, though they are clearly being indoctrinated. But the subtext here is not very, well, sub. It's pretty heavy handed and paints all beliefs with one brush. The idea that in the future humans will not have religion but will still watch Seinfeld is just dumb. I'm not saying it can't happen, but if they want me to believe it, I want more information. How do they explain the Charlie Brown Christmas special if no one is Christian any more? Or have all things that have any religious "taint" been banned, eliminated? Are we supposed to see ourselves [the humans, the Union] as better than the Krill for having risen above religion? If we do that, aren't we just as bad as the Krill in thinking we are superior?
Oh, but we don't go killing people and taking their stuff, you say. Except in this episode they totally do.
But we do it for the good of... Of what? Our own race and allies? Yup. So do the Krill.
But we do it to protect our own. We don't start fights but we end them. Fair enough. But you're asking me to believe the Krill use their religion as the reason they start fights. Or the excuse. Removing their beliefs wouldn't change their behavior, I don't think. They'd find another reason/excuse to take what they want. We see people with money do that all the time, people with better technology—anyone with the upper hand. Religion doesn't have to be the reason. It can be a reason, but it's almost never the only reason.
I didn't mean for this to turn into a treatise. I myself am not religious, though I grew up in a religious household. I know that strong beliefs can cause problems, but not believing isn't the solution. I think it matters what you emphasize, whether it's the "love thy neighbor" and "judge not lest ye be judged" versus "an eye for an eye" or whatever the verse is that says to kill everyone who doesn't believe the same thing as you. Like, if a majority of the Union converted and worshiped Avis, would the Krill still kill people? Is this really about the belief or is it a racial thing?
Whatever. This episode had some truly tense moments, I'll give it that. And it certainly made me think.
10.12.2017
Wha to Look for in a Small Publisher (Part 2: Contracts)
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Hey! The next part of my guest post on Dale Cameron Lowry's site is up. This one focuses on what to look for if a small publisher should offer you a contract.
10.10.2017
What to Look For in a Small Publisher
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Television: The Orville, "Pria"
I guess I'm still watching this show, which says something in and of itself, right? I still can't decide if I like it though. I don't think I've ever had a show confuse me this much.
A couple years ago there was a Twitter account dedicated to the fictitious story lines of a Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 8. And I kind of think The Orville is pranking us by using some of those story ideas?
Anyway, this episode features Charlize Theron as the titular Pria, a space miner... traveling alone... and found stranded on a comet? Like, doesn't that already seem weird? Sure, she gives a glib story, but wouldn't it be standard procedure to look people up when they come on board? Like, aren't there passports or ID cards or something? You're going to tell me that in the future we don't need ID any more? Not even a retinal scan? I'm calling B.S.
B plot: Gordon trying to teach Isaac about human humor, resulting in a series of practical jokes.
Meanwhile, Kelly (because that's a name that will come back into fashion in a few hundred years) is suspicious of Pria. And maybe a little jealous that Ed (a timeless classic of a name) is practically jumping into a relationship with her. Ed—who tells Pria he's had a hard time trusting after Kelly's adultery—sure is quick to trust this time around. Damn.
As expected (because there wouldn't be a story if it all went well), Pria is not who she claims to be, and stuff happens and then everyone goes home. Except they are home. So everyone stays where they are, I guess. And there's kind of a tiny crack left open to allow Pria to come back in future episodes, kind of like Vash in ST:TNG.
What is The Orville's mission, anyway? Do they just float around waiting until someone needs them? Are they a cosmic coast guard or something? They always seem to be just hanging out (watching old TV shows, evidently) until someone sends a distress signal. The bridge is not a living room. At the very least, I would think most people would be wearing headphones and watching YouTube videos on their personal displays.
And if I have to hear that "jar of pickles" line one more time... We all hate that uncle who says the same damn thing every time, right? We don't want Ed to be that uncle. FIND A DIFFERENT LINE, ED!
I can't even decide about this show. My husband really enjoys it, so I'll probably keep watching by default. I'm not sure, though, if I'd watch if it were just me. I honestly don't know. Except, I have to say: the other night, I remember thinking, "Feels like an Orville kind of night." So maybe The Orville is filling a void in the TV cosmos that I didn't even realize was there.
10.07.2017
Television: Spielberg
Anyone who knows me knows Steven Spielberg has left a great impression on my life. His was the first name I knew in movies. The first movie I can remember seeing in a cinema is Raiders of the Lost Ark (though I spent the film thinking his name was "Petey" and that he was a cowboy because hat). I was only five years old when that movie came out, and there are questions as to whether my parents should have taken me to see it, but whatever. From that moment I was a Steven Spielberg fan.
I didn't know what Spielberg did exactly. But his name was on all the best movies. Whatever he did, I wanted to do it, too. I wanted to make amazing things that people watched.
Spielberg is the reason I have a film degree.
Alas, I haven't made any movies. I've worked on film sets, and I've had one short film made of my stage play, but that's the sum total of my filmography. Still, I can very much appreciate—and envy—Mr. Spielberg's career. I haven't seen all his films, not nearly. Some I will probably never watch. But he's made such a wide variety of movies . . . Kind of like how I write a lot of different genres . . . I can appreciate the desire to keep moving and trying new things and the need to tell new stories, even if deep down they are similar thematically.
So this documentary—which is long at around 2 hours 21 minutes—well, it might as well have been made for me. It's a nice retrospective of Spielberg's career thus far, and besides talking to the man himself and hearing his side, they managed to gather a lot of big names to chime in. I don't think any of it was revelatory. But I think it was interesting and tidy. Well packaged, I'd say.
I guess the one thing is: if you're interested in Spielberg and his work, you probably already know a lot of what Spielberg covers, and if you don't know a lot about him, this documentary may feel a tad dry. Like, my attention wandered a few times. And I'm a devotee. So I don't know what less adoring viewers might think.
In all, I enjoyed it. Nothing exciting, but solid, and a nice perspective on the man and his work.
(Now if he'd just direct The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller...)
I didn't know what Spielberg did exactly. But his name was on all the best movies. Whatever he did, I wanted to do it, too. I wanted to make amazing things that people watched.
Spielberg is the reason I have a film degree.
Alas, I haven't made any movies. I've worked on film sets, and I've had one short film made of my stage play, but that's the sum total of my filmography. Still, I can very much appreciate—and envy—Mr. Spielberg's career. I haven't seen all his films, not nearly. Some I will probably never watch. But he's made such a wide variety of movies . . . Kind of like how I write a lot of different genres . . . I can appreciate the desire to keep moving and trying new things and the need to tell new stories, even if deep down they are similar thematically.
So this documentary—which is long at around 2 hours 21 minutes—well, it might as well have been made for me. It's a nice retrospective of Spielberg's career thus far, and besides talking to the man himself and hearing his side, they managed to gather a lot of big names to chime in. I don't think any of it was revelatory. But I think it was interesting and tidy. Well packaged, I'd say.
I guess the one thing is: if you're interested in Spielberg and his work, you probably already know a lot of what Spielberg covers, and if you don't know a lot about him, this documentary may feel a tad dry. Like, my attention wandered a few times. And I'm a devotee. So I don't know what less adoring viewers might think.
In all, I enjoyed it. Nothing exciting, but solid, and a nice perspective on the man and his work.
(Now if he'd just direct The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller...)
10.05.2017
Television: The Orville, "If the Stars Should Appear"
So I can't decide if this show means to be as dumb as it is? Like, is it designed to point out how stupid a lot of Star Trek is/was? Or...???
Look, on the surface this is a clever little story about a world inside a spaceship. The ship itself is adrift and the people on board have forgotten they're on a ship at all. So as the ship drifts towards a star, the Orville crew attempts to save it, but the passengers are living some agrarian lifestyle and praying to a strange god (spoiler: their god turns out to be Liam Neeson, so it's understandable) and most of them are suspicious and not wanting the help.
All in all, it's typical Trek-style fare. But there's something lacking here. Maybe it's that I don't care a lick about any of the main characters. Just none of them appeal to me. Maybe it's that there was practically no B plot in this episode. We open with Bortus and Klyden having a tiff that goes nowhere. Local color? We've had our fill of Bortus and Klyden with the last episode, so maybe we should focus on someone else for a change?
I just feel like this episode idea was a good one, but the execution didn't hold up. Very beat-by-beat, and I never felt any real tension. (Again, possibly because I'm not invested in the characters.) I wanted this to be an episode of Babylon 5. I could totally see this playing out in interesting ways if only the characters were more engaging.
And boy, are they pulling on the strings to get cameos and guest stars. Next week it will be Charlize Theron. This feels like stunt casting, and it feels desperate this early in the show's run. I haven't looked at the ratings, though. Have no idea how well The Orville is doing with viewers.
I don't know. I might keep watching? I'm really on the fence. Maybe the characters will get better? I'm seriously conflicted. But at the very least, it's a show I can turn on when I don't want to do any brain work and I've watched all the House Hunters.
Look, on the surface this is a clever little story about a world inside a spaceship. The ship itself is adrift and the people on board have forgotten they're on a ship at all. So as the ship drifts towards a star, the Orville crew attempts to save it, but the passengers are living some agrarian lifestyle and praying to a strange god (spoiler: their god turns out to be Liam Neeson, so it's understandable) and most of them are suspicious and not wanting the help.
All in all, it's typical Trek-style fare. But there's something lacking here. Maybe it's that I don't care a lick about any of the main characters. Just none of them appeal to me. Maybe it's that there was practically no B plot in this episode. We open with Bortus and Klyden having a tiff that goes nowhere. Local color? We've had our fill of Bortus and Klyden with the last episode, so maybe we should focus on someone else for a change?
I just feel like this episode idea was a good one, but the execution didn't hold up. Very beat-by-beat, and I never felt any real tension. (Again, possibly because I'm not invested in the characters.) I wanted this to be an episode of Babylon 5. I could totally see this playing out in interesting ways if only the characters were more engaging.
And boy, are they pulling on the strings to get cameos and guest stars. Next week it will be Charlize Theron. This feels like stunt casting, and it feels desperate this early in the show's run. I haven't looked at the ratings, though. Have no idea how well The Orville is doing with viewers.
I don't know. I might keep watching? I'm really on the fence. Maybe the characters will get better? I'm seriously conflicted. But at the very least, it's a show I can turn on when I don't want to do any brain work and I've watched all the House Hunters.
10.01.2017
Movies: The Sound
It's a dumb name for a psychological thriller/horror movie. But whatever.
Rose McGowan plays Kelly Johansen, a woman whose job is to debunk hauntings. She does this through low frequency sounds, I guess? Also: how does she make any money? Do people pay her to come to their houses and do this? She's evidently written a book, and she keeps a blog or Tumblr or something, so maybe that's where the money comes from? I'm just saying, what's the going rate for someone to come to your house and tell you it's not haunted, there's just an airport nearby?
Kelly is smug and borderline unlikable, which is how we know she's going to have to go through something torturous to wipe that smugness right out of her. She gets a message that leads her to an abandoned subway station in Toronto, and she promises her husband (or is he just a boyfriend?) she'll be back in time for that night's party, which sounds (har, see what I did there?) ridiculous considering she's flying to Toronto. I don't know where they are, exactly, so maybe it's a short flight, but still.
In the cab on the way to the subway station, Kelly gets the obligatory phone call from her mother that hints that something strange and/or terrible happened on that day thirty years before. 🙄 So now we know this is definitely going to be a thing.
The cab driver tells Kelly about how he and his friends once broke into the abandoned station, but we don't get to hear what he saw. As for the abandoned station itself, it's apparently ridiculously easy to break into. There's a door leading from the working station to the closed-off one. No tools required, just walk right on in. Again: 🙄
What we get from here on in is fairly standard pseudo-horror stuff with hallucinations, etc. Christopher Lloyd appears as a ghostly maintenance man. Kelly becomes weirdly sleepy and has numerous dreams/hallucinations. Nothing very scary, however, and it's pretty obvious a lot of what she thinks is happening isn't actually happening. Also, how is she getting cell service and Internet down there?
The core of the "horror" (if it can be called that, since none of it is particularly horrific) is a girl named Emily that apparently has something to do with this 30-year anniversary that Kelly's mom called about. Kelly keeps seeing/dreaming of a little girl in a white dress with a doll, and Kelly has the ratty old doll in her duffel . . . I won't give away the ending, but I will say I wasn't wowed—or surprised, for that matter.
For a low-budget, limited-locations production, this one is produced pretty well, and there are a couple of known names starring in it. That's impressive. I just wish someone had given the script itself a bit of a lift. It's murky and soporific and could have used some stronger twists to keep it interesting.
Rose McGowan plays Kelly Johansen, a woman whose job is to debunk hauntings. She does this through low frequency sounds, I guess? Also: how does she make any money? Do people pay her to come to their houses and do this? She's evidently written a book, and she keeps a blog or Tumblr or something, so maybe that's where the money comes from? I'm just saying, what's the going rate for someone to come to your house and tell you it's not haunted, there's just an airport nearby?
Kelly is smug and borderline unlikable, which is how we know she's going to have to go through something torturous to wipe that smugness right out of her. She gets a message that leads her to an abandoned subway station in Toronto, and she promises her husband (or is he just a boyfriend?) she'll be back in time for that night's party, which sounds (har, see what I did there?) ridiculous considering she's flying to Toronto. I don't know where they are, exactly, so maybe it's a short flight, but still.
In the cab on the way to the subway station, Kelly gets the obligatory phone call from her mother that hints that something strange and/or terrible happened on that day thirty years before. 🙄 So now we know this is definitely going to be a thing.
The cab driver tells Kelly about how he and his friends once broke into the abandoned station, but we don't get to hear what he saw. As for the abandoned station itself, it's apparently ridiculously easy to break into. There's a door leading from the working station to the closed-off one. No tools required, just walk right on in. Again: 🙄
What we get from here on in is fairly standard pseudo-horror stuff with hallucinations, etc. Christopher Lloyd appears as a ghostly maintenance man. Kelly becomes weirdly sleepy and has numerous dreams/hallucinations. Nothing very scary, however, and it's pretty obvious a lot of what she thinks is happening isn't actually happening. Also, how is she getting cell service and Internet down there?
The core of the "horror" (if it can be called that, since none of it is particularly horrific) is a girl named Emily that apparently has something to do with this 30-year anniversary that Kelly's mom called about. Kelly keeps seeing/dreaming of a little girl in a white dress with a doll, and Kelly has the ratty old doll in her duffel . . . I won't give away the ending, but I will say I wasn't wowed—or surprised, for that matter.
For a low-budget, limited-locations production, this one is produced pretty well, and there are a couple of known names starring in it. That's impressive. I just wish someone had given the script itself a bit of a lift. It's murky and soporific and could have used some stronger twists to keep it interesting.
9.30.2017
Movies: The LEGO Ninjago Movie
Voices By: Jackie Chan, Dave Franco, Justin Theroux, Fred Armisen
Directed By: Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher, Bob Logan
Written By: Bob Logan, Paul Fisher, William Wheeler, Tom Wheeler, Jared Stern, John Whittington (screenplay); 7 other people, except a few are the same people (story)
Warner Bros., 2017
PG; 101 minutes
4.25 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
So on the LEGO movie spectrum, I liked this one almost as much as The LEGO Movie and quite a bit more than The LEGO Batman Movie.
Dave Franco voices Lloyd Garmadon, son of the world's greatest villain. Lloyd has just turned 16, and he's hated by pretty much everyone simply because his dad is the worst. Of course, Lloyd is secretly one of the Ninjas that defend the city every time Garmadon (Justin Theroux) attacks. It's a sweet gig but Lloyd is naturally conflicted. He longs to have a father-son relationship, but how is that possible when his dad (a) left when he was a baby, and (b) is an evil tyrant?
During a particularly vicious battle between the Ninjas and Garmadon's army, Lloyd takes the nigh unforgivable step of using The Ultimate Weapon. It only makes things worse and hands Garmadon a victory. So Lloyd must go in search of the Ultimate Ultimate Weapon to make things right again.
The story is simplistic and predictable, but there's enough humor to keep things going. Jackie Chan is a natural as the voice of Master Wu, who also happens to be Lloyd's uncle and Garmadon's brother. A live-action frame story featuring Chan as the proprietor of a cluttered shop is also very cute, if stereotypical.
I do feel like there could have been more in-depth introductions to the other Ninjas. I've never watched the television show, so maybe that's something I'm already supposed to be familiar with. And I get that this is a kids' movie and character development isn't necessarily a focus. But it just seems to me that they could have done a wee bit more there. (This may be a bi-product of writing by committee.)
But overall, a cute movie, and my kids really enjoyed it, which was kind of the point. The fact that I liked it as much as I did is a bonus.
Directed By: Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher, Bob Logan
Written By: Bob Logan, Paul Fisher, William Wheeler, Tom Wheeler, Jared Stern, John Whittington (screenplay); 7 other people, except a few are the same people (story)
Warner Bros., 2017
PG; 101 minutes
4.25 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
So on the LEGO movie spectrum, I liked this one almost as much as The LEGO Movie and quite a bit more than The LEGO Batman Movie.
Dave Franco voices Lloyd Garmadon, son of the world's greatest villain. Lloyd has just turned 16, and he's hated by pretty much everyone simply because his dad is the worst. Of course, Lloyd is secretly one of the Ninjas that defend the city every time Garmadon (Justin Theroux) attacks. It's a sweet gig but Lloyd is naturally conflicted. He longs to have a father-son relationship, but how is that possible when his dad (a) left when he was a baby, and (b) is an evil tyrant?
During a particularly vicious battle between the Ninjas and Garmadon's army, Lloyd takes the nigh unforgivable step of using The Ultimate Weapon. It only makes things worse and hands Garmadon a victory. So Lloyd must go in search of the Ultimate Ultimate Weapon to make things right again.
The story is simplistic and predictable, but there's enough humor to keep things going. Jackie Chan is a natural as the voice of Master Wu, who also happens to be Lloyd's uncle and Garmadon's brother. A live-action frame story featuring Chan as the proprietor of a cluttered shop is also very cute, if stereotypical.
I do feel like there could have been more in-depth introductions to the other Ninjas. I've never watched the television show, so maybe that's something I'm already supposed to be familiar with. And I get that this is a kids' movie and character development isn't necessarily a focus. But it just seems to me that they could have done a wee bit more there. (This may be a bi-product of writing by committee.)
But overall, a cute movie, and my kids really enjoyed it, which was kind of the point. The fact that I liked it as much as I did is a bonus.
9.29.2017
Books: Online or Flatline by Nick Choat
Full disclosure: I was sent a copy of this book via some review group that I assume the author hired to, er, get reviews for his book. The reason I requested a review copy was that I hoped the book would have some insight for me as a self-published author. I mean, being a self-published author is like running a small business in many ways. However, I can't say this book had much for me.
This book is so short it's almost a thick pamphlet. That said, one could praise it for being concise? I will say I enjoy Choat's conversational tone. The book is inviting. Perhaps Choat realizes some people—and this book really seems geared at older businesspeople—are a little afraid of the online world, at least when it comes to marketing. So he tries with his tone to make it all less scary.
That said, this book is very basic, too. It's for extreme beginners. This book is a toe dip, not a jump-in-and-swim. And some of the information is not exactly true. In particular, Choat goes on for a bit about "Google for Business" which isn't a thing as far as I can tell. He writes:
While Choat discusses at length the things he considers necessary for small business success (a Web site being #1, which, duh), most of his examples are anecdotal. There aren't hard numbers here, or even much data to back up his words. He mentions things he's done for his haircut franchise but doesn't say what his results were. Sure, he did some Facebook ads, but can he tell us how many new customers came in from those? Apparently not. When talking about the need to have your business listed in online directories, he writes: "While I don't have hard data, intuitively I believe that 10-20 percent of your digitally acquired new customers will come through these platforms." Intuitively? Does he have a reason for this intuition, or is it a gut feeling?
On the plus side, Choat is correct is telling small-business owners to beware predators who will milk them. Vet any "service providers" and be sure to figure out how much you can do on your own and for yourself. While a lot of what Choat recommends—and he really is only covering the bare basics here—takes time, much of it shouldn't cost any money. Choat is right to tell readers that they should only hire experts (and make sure they're experts!) as a last resort if/when they can't do something themselves.
He's also on point when telling readers to start with one and then build. Don't try to do Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. all at once. Get a Web site set up, then a Facebook page. Let that ride for a while before adding another component. There's nothing more overwhelming than too many social media outlets to manage.
Finally, as an editor I found numerous punctuation problems that distracted me from the text. I also have to marvel at the $12.99 barcode considering the book is only 100 pages long. (Goodreads thinks it's 124, but the copy I received is 104 pages. Maybe I'm missing a few? But my pages are numbered consecutively, so . . .)
In short, this book is a modest stepping stone to a much wider digital world. It's a starting point, but one that beginning online marketers will quickly outgrow. Many readers will soon find themselves in search of broader and more in-depth information. This book is equivalent to water wings; readers may benefit more from a lifejacket.
This book is so short it's almost a thick pamphlet. That said, one could praise it for being concise? I will say I enjoy Choat's conversational tone. The book is inviting. Perhaps Choat realizes some people—and this book really seems geared at older businesspeople—are a little afraid of the online world, at least when it comes to marketing. So he tries with his tone to make it all less scary.
That said, this book is very basic, too. It's for extreme beginners. This book is a toe dip, not a jump-in-and-swim. And some of the information is not exactly true. In particular, Choat goes on for a bit about "Google for Business" which isn't a thing as far as I can tell. He writes:
One platform, Google for Business (formerly G+), stands out from this crowd for the simple reason that Google owns the platform. The original G+ struggled to capture social hearts and minds like Facebook. So Google . . . repositioned G+ to be a tool for small businesses instead of a social tool for the masses. Now they call it Google for Business.He goes on to say that this "Google for Business" works against business owners who don't have a profile with them. As best I can tell, none of this is true. First off, I think Choat may mean Google My Business, which is an online directory that businesses can post a profile on. However, Google+ (or G+) still exists as a social platform as well. And I've never heard of anyone suffering for not having a Google My Business profile. If your SEO is working, you'll come up in search results regardless.
While Choat discusses at length the things he considers necessary for small business success (a Web site being #1, which, duh), most of his examples are anecdotal. There aren't hard numbers here, or even much data to back up his words. He mentions things he's done for his haircut franchise but doesn't say what his results were. Sure, he did some Facebook ads, but can he tell us how many new customers came in from those? Apparently not. When talking about the need to have your business listed in online directories, he writes: "While I don't have hard data, intuitively I believe that 10-20 percent of your digitally acquired new customers will come through these platforms." Intuitively? Does he have a reason for this intuition, or is it a gut feeling?
On the plus side, Choat is correct is telling small-business owners to beware predators who will milk them. Vet any "service providers" and be sure to figure out how much you can do on your own and for yourself. While a lot of what Choat recommends—and he really is only covering the bare basics here—takes time, much of it shouldn't cost any money. Choat is right to tell readers that they should only hire experts (and make sure they're experts!) as a last resort if/when they can't do something themselves.
He's also on point when telling readers to start with one and then build. Don't try to do Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. all at once. Get a Web site set up, then a Facebook page. Let that ride for a while before adding another component. There's nothing more overwhelming than too many social media outlets to manage.
Finally, as an editor I found numerous punctuation problems that distracted me from the text. I also have to marvel at the $12.99 barcode considering the book is only 100 pages long. (Goodreads thinks it's 124, but the copy I received is 104 pages. Maybe I'm missing a few? But my pages are numbered consecutively, so . . .)
In short, this book is a modest stepping stone to a much wider digital world. It's a starting point, but one that beginning online marketers will quickly outgrow. Many readers will soon find themselves in search of broader and more in-depth information. This book is equivalent to water wings; readers may benefit more from a lifejacket.
9.27.2017
Movies: Kingsman: The Golden Circle
Starring: Taron Egerton, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, Julianne Moore . . . Elton John?
Directed By: Matthew Vaughn
Written By: Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn (screenplay) from the comic book by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons
20th Century Fox, 2017
R; 141 minutes
3.75 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
First question: Was there a fire sale on John Denver music for use in film or something? Or is it just that films with any connection to Channing Tatum are required to use John Denver songs now? Because between this one and Logan Lucky, I've heard more John Denver in the past few weeks than I have since that episode of The Muppet Show from when I was a kid. You know the one.
If that weren't weird enough, Elton John is in this movie and you still hear more John Denver than anything else.
Okay, okay, whatever. Let's get to the nuts and bolts.
A disgruntled Kingsman reject attempts to hijack Eggsy's very sophisticated cab one night, and while Eggsy manages to fend the baddies off, they still get the info they need to incite the rest of the plot. Namely, they discover locations of all Kingsman agents and properties and destroy them all. Only Eggsy and Merlin survive.
There is a Doomsday Protocol for this kind of thing, and that leads our heroes to Kentucky, where they team up with the Statesman operation—a U.S. cousin to the British Kingsman, natch. But while the Kingsman cover is a tailor shop, the Statesman agency makes whiskey.
Julianne Moore plays Poppy, a psycho drug dealer who craves recognition for her work as the most successful "pharmaceutical CEO" in the world. Alas, she's forced to live in the jungles of Cambodia in an HQ that looks more like she runs Johnny Rocket's. She explains this by saying she grew up amid 50's nostalgia and still loves it. Which is why she's also kidnapped Elton John for her personal entertainment.
Questions you didn't even know you wanted answered:
(1) Do they give an explanation for Colin Firth's survival? A: Yes, and while it feels like a bit of a reach, it is in keeping with the world that has been built.
(2) Is Channing Tatum in this movie? A: For about five minutes. Despite what the trailers have led you to believe, we mostly spend time with Pedro Pascal (you know him from Game of Thrones, but in this film he looks like he's going for gold in a Burt Reynolds lookalike contest).
(3) Is it as violent as the first movie? A: Hmm. There are a couple not lovely moments with a meat grinder, but other than that, it's not terrible.
I enjoyed this film, though not nearly as much as the first. Apparently Eggsy is still in a relationship with the princess who let him "do butt stuff" (and her English has improved) . . . I feel like there is a lot of talent that didn't get fully explored in this movie, and I think the overall problem of drug users being in imminent danger of dying if Poppy doesn't distribute the antidote was weak. As in, not very compelling. And then the denouement felt too easy, and Agent Whiskey's motivation was not established early on, and Galahad Sr.'s mental issues get dropped halfway through, etc. Like, just a lot of minor problems that built up to be a distraction for me from my overall pleasure in the film.
And then at the end (minor spoilers), I have to assume some time has passed? Impeachment doesn't happen that quickly (as we all know), and I don't think a wedding can be slapped together so fast either. So I can only assume there's a leap in time there somewhere.
That said, the action sequences are well done as ever. Halle Berry does a fine job with a limited role. Too bad there wasn't more Jeff Bridges, but I'd say that even about movies in which Jeff Bridges is the star, so . . .
tl;dr: I had fun. But not as much fun as I expected to have.
Directed By: Matthew Vaughn
Written By: Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn (screenplay) from the comic book by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons
20th Century Fox, 2017
R; 141 minutes
3.75 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
First question: Was there a fire sale on John Denver music for use in film or something? Or is it just that films with any connection to Channing Tatum are required to use John Denver songs now? Because between this one and Logan Lucky, I've heard more John Denver in the past few weeks than I have since that episode of The Muppet Show from when I was a kid. You know the one.
If that weren't weird enough, Elton John is in this movie and you still hear more John Denver than anything else.
Okay, okay, whatever. Let's get to the nuts and bolts.
A disgruntled Kingsman reject attempts to hijack Eggsy's very sophisticated cab one night, and while Eggsy manages to fend the baddies off, they still get the info they need to incite the rest of the plot. Namely, they discover locations of all Kingsman agents and properties and destroy them all. Only Eggsy and Merlin survive.
There is a Doomsday Protocol for this kind of thing, and that leads our heroes to Kentucky, where they team up with the Statesman operation—a U.S. cousin to the British Kingsman, natch. But while the Kingsman cover is a tailor shop, the Statesman agency makes whiskey.
Julianne Moore plays Poppy, a psycho drug dealer who craves recognition for her work as the most successful "pharmaceutical CEO" in the world. Alas, she's forced to live in the jungles of Cambodia in an HQ that looks more like she runs Johnny Rocket's. She explains this by saying she grew up amid 50's nostalgia and still loves it. Which is why she's also kidnapped Elton John for her personal entertainment.
Questions you didn't even know you wanted answered:
(1) Do they give an explanation for Colin Firth's survival? A: Yes, and while it feels like a bit of a reach, it is in keeping with the world that has been built.
(2) Is Channing Tatum in this movie? A: For about five minutes. Despite what the trailers have led you to believe, we mostly spend time with Pedro Pascal (you know him from Game of Thrones, but in this film he looks like he's going for gold in a Burt Reynolds lookalike contest).
(3) Is it as violent as the first movie? A: Hmm. There are a couple not lovely moments with a meat grinder, but other than that, it's not terrible.
I enjoyed this film, though not nearly as much as the first. Apparently Eggsy is still in a relationship with the princess who let him "do butt stuff" (and her English has improved) . . . I feel like there is a lot of talent that didn't get fully explored in this movie, and I think the overall problem of drug users being in imminent danger of dying if Poppy doesn't distribute the antidote was weak. As in, not very compelling. And then the denouement felt too easy, and Agent Whiskey's motivation was not established early on, and Galahad Sr.'s mental issues get dropped halfway through, etc. Like, just a lot of minor problems that built up to be a distraction for me from my overall pleasure in the film.
And then at the end (minor spoilers), I have to assume some time has passed? Impeachment doesn't happen that quickly (as we all know), and I don't think a wedding can be slapped together so fast either. So I can only assume there's a leap in time there somewhere.
That said, the action sequences are well done as ever. Halle Berry does a fine job with a limited role. Too bad there wasn't more Jeff Bridges, but I'd say that even about movies in which Jeff Bridges is the star, so . . .
tl;dr: I had fun. But not as much fun as I expected to have.
9.26.2017
Books: Fangirl by Rainbow Rowell
I heard about this book a while back. (It was published in 2013.) Because I'm contrary by nature, I almost never read books people tell me I "must" read. At least not right away. It's why I didn't read the first Harry Potter book until 2001 or so. And why I didn't read this one until I found it cheap at Half-Price Books.
Fangirl is a pretty simple story. Cath is starting college, and her twin sister Wren (get it? Cath-Wren? Cathrine?) doesn't want to be her roommate. They've shared a room their whole lives and now Cath feels adrift in an unfamiliar world. So she clings to her fan fiction—stories she writes about her favorite literary hero (a magician named Simon Snow, very like Harry Potter). Cath writes slash about Simon and a vampire character named Baz, and apparently is a very popular fanfic author online. Which explains why Cath keeps retreating to that world rather than face her daily life of classes, boys, and a snarky roommate.
Since I was also a well-received fanfic author when I went to college, I really sympathized with Cath in a lot of ways. (Of course, I'm old enough that back then fanfic had to be submitted to zines; you couldn't just post it online and have people flock to you.) But I found a lot of her problems to be superficial, and I also found her a little too naive to believe.
Cases in point (spoilers, sweeties):
Things I did like:
Seriously, though, a lot of the plot lines were so suddenly sewn up without being satisfying. And some felt left open. I guess the mom just disappeared down whatever hole she'd crawled out of. So... Okay.
All this makes it sounds like a dud of a book, but I still gave it four stars on Goodreads. Because I did enjoy it overall. Since the conflicts were superficial and/or not plunged into with any depth (alcoholism and mental illness are heavy stuff, but not here!), Fangirl is a fast read. So it's got that going for it. If you want a book you can skate through relatively easily, this one will do.
Fangirl is a pretty simple story. Cath is starting college, and her twin sister Wren (get it? Cath-Wren? Cathrine?) doesn't want to be her roommate. They've shared a room their whole lives and now Cath feels adrift in an unfamiliar world. So she clings to her fan fiction—stories she writes about her favorite literary hero (a magician named Simon Snow, very like Harry Potter). Cath writes slash about Simon and a vampire character named Baz, and apparently is a very popular fanfic author online. Which explains why Cath keeps retreating to that world rather than face her daily life of classes, boys, and a snarky roommate.
Since I was also a well-received fanfic author when I went to college, I really sympathized with Cath in a lot of ways. (Of course, I'm old enough that back then fanfic had to be submitted to zines; you couldn't just post it online and have people flock to you.) But I found a lot of her problems to be superficial, and I also found her a little too naive to believe.
Cases in point (spoilers, sweeties):
- She didn't see that the guy in her fiction writing class was using her. And then she let him use her.
- She apparently didn't understand that you can't turn fan fiction in as your writing assignment?
- As a shut-in (or nearly), she still manages to captivate a cute, too-perfect boy who hangs around her dorm room in the hopes that she'll notice him. Um... No. Boys don't just turn up at your door. If you want a relationship, you have to work for it.
- Family drama: an alcoholic twin, a dad with mental illness issues, a deadbeat mom who tries to re-insert herself in their lives . . . And yet these all felt somewhat glossed over.
- A writing teacher who see the spark in her and pursues her because she just knows Cath is destined to be a great writer. Gag me. Cath, who isn't even trying, somehow wins a major writing prize. Again, no. I worked for our college lit mag, and I've worked in publishing, and... Just no. (Especially based on the writing samples in the novel.)
Things I did like:
- The interstitial bits of actual Simon Snow text versus Cath's fan fiction. (Of course, there is no "actual" Simon Snow text since Simon Snow books aren't a real thing, but it was a cute idea. Maybe too cute? Too gimmicky? I still enjoyed it.)
- The snarky roommate.
- The dad.
- The boyfriend, even though he was too perfect to be believed and they never fought? 😁 (I feel like that one could also go against this book.)
Seriously, though, a lot of the plot lines were so suddenly sewn up without being satisfying. And some felt left open. I guess the mom just disappeared down whatever hole she'd crawled out of. So... Okay.
All this makes it sounds like a dud of a book, but I still gave it four stars on Goodreads. Because I did enjoy it overall. Since the conflicts were superficial and/or not plunged into with any depth (alcoholism and mental illness are heavy stuff, but not here!), Fangirl is a fast read. So it's got that going for it. If you want a book you can skate through relatively easily, this one will do.
9.25.2017
Books: A Darker Shade of Magic by V.E. Schwab
I'll admit the cover art drew me in. And then the blurb on the dust jacket flap. Then I read the first two chapters and thought that my 11-year-old son would love the book, too. So I started over and read it aloud to him.
It's not YA, exactly. I didn't find it shelved in YA at the bookstore I was at, and there are some things that maybe parents wouldn't want their kids to read (swears, hints at rape). But I found it fine for my son who is an advanced reader and with whom I can have very open conversations. (He did still cringe at the couple of kissy parts.)
I think it's interesting, too, that I liked Kell but found Lila to be a bit cliché while my son really liked Lila.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me give you a synopsis first.
Kell is a rare kind of magician known as Antari. In fact, there are apparently only two: him and Holland. Meanwhile, there are four Londons: Grey, Red, White, and Black. Only Antari can travel between the Londons and their worlds.
Kell lives in Red London and is property of the royal family there, though they treat him almost as an adopted son. Holland, meanwhile, is owned by the sadistic rulers of White London. Grey London is the London we know; it's almost devoid of magic. At the point of time in this book, George III is king.
Lila is a thief in Grey London, trying to save to buy a ship because she wants to be a pirate. Alas, her adventure comes from another direction when she pickpockets Kell and ends up entangled in his troubles. They make a good team, and yet I couldn't help feeling she was somewhat one note. There are hints that she's more than meets the *ahem* eye, so maybe her character deepens in later books. (This is first in a trilogy.)
I also found the final battle to be a tad weak after all the build up to it.
Still, overall I really liked this book. I'm a tiny bit in love with Kell, and since I can't remember the last time a writer made me fall in love with a character, that's worth something to me. I look forward to the next book.
Television: Star Trek: Discovery, "The Vulcan Hello"
I've only watched the first hour because that's the part that actually aired on, you know, an actual television station. Sorry, but I'm really sick of being asked to subscribe to twenty different streaming services for a show here, a show there. If CBS offered me more interesting stuff, maybe I'd consider it. But for one show? Even if it is a Trek show? ::smh:: No, I'm not paying a premium to watch one goddamn TV show.
That said, the first hour of this show is pretty good. Not sure why everyone needs to work in half light, and it's pretty talky—also has the sin of putting exposition in dialogue, particularly in the scene where we meet Captain Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) and Michael (Sonequa Martin-Green), which had me asking aloud, "Wouldn't they have had this briefing before going to the planet?" But whatever.
Michael Burnham (apparently in the future Michael becomes a girl's name) is first officer on Captain Georgiou's ship. Michael was also raised by Vulcans after her parents were killed by Klingons. In fact, she was raised by Sarek, so it's totally weird that Spock has never mentioned her, like, ever. In this case, too, Sarek is played by James Frain's nose. (Sorry, I'm so very sorry, but I just can't not say it whenever I see James Frain. It's just so obviously James Frain that I can't even think of him as Sarek. It's problematic for me.)
Anyway, there hasn't been any interaction between the Federation and the Klingons for 100 years or something, but then there they are: Klingons. And Michael goes to Sarek for advice because Klingons don't bother Vulcans, so she wants to know what Vulcans do to keep Klingons away. Some kind of repellant? Citronella candles?
Turns out Vulcans always fire first. That somehow earned the Klingons' respect and now they leave Vulcans alone.
Alas, Michael is unable to convince her captain that they need to fire on the Klingons. So she assaults her commanding officer instead, which I'm pretty sure is worthy of court martial. Alas, the hour ended and I'm not paying for the subscription, so . . . ::shrug:: Bummed I didn't even get to see Jason Isaacs, though.
That said, the first hour of this show is pretty good. Not sure why everyone needs to work in half light, and it's pretty talky—also has the sin of putting exposition in dialogue, particularly in the scene where we meet Captain Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) and Michael (Sonequa Martin-Green), which had me asking aloud, "Wouldn't they have had this briefing before going to the planet?" But whatever.
Michael Burnham (apparently in the future Michael becomes a girl's name) is first officer on Captain Georgiou's ship. Michael was also raised by Vulcans after her parents were killed by Klingons. In fact, she was raised by Sarek, so it's totally weird that Spock has never mentioned her, like, ever. In this case, too, Sarek is played by James Frain's nose. (Sorry, I'm so very sorry, but I just can't not say it whenever I see James Frain. It's just so obviously James Frain that I can't even think of him as Sarek. It's problematic for me.)
Anyway, there hasn't been any interaction between the Federation and the Klingons for 100 years or something, but then there they are: Klingons. And Michael goes to Sarek for advice because Klingons don't bother Vulcans, so she wants to know what Vulcans do to keep Klingons away. Some kind of repellant? Citronella candles?
Turns out Vulcans always fire first. That somehow earned the Klingons' respect and now they leave Vulcans alone.
Alas, Michael is unable to convince her captain that they need to fire on the Klingons. So she assaults her commanding officer instead, which I'm pretty sure is worthy of court martial. Alas, the hour ended and I'm not paying for the subscription, so . . . ::shrug:: Bummed I didn't even get to see Jason Isaacs, though.
9.24.2017
Television: Anime
I used to watch anime a lot, but it's been a while. Like, 10-15 years. But I started to miss it, and so I re-watched some Shoujo Kakumei Utena and even the first episode of Fushigi Yuugi and began to wonder what else might be out there. Because while I still adore Cardcaptor Sakura, I'm not yet at the point in my life where I just want to relive the good times. I don't want to watch the same shows over again any more than I want to read the same books over and over.
So we got Crunchyroll and began exploring. Sampled a few things we didn't really get into, like Restaurant to Another World, and something about a kid who constantly is forced to choose between two very bad options, and another show in which the students all went to some school to be mages. But we've found some stuff we really like, too.
Aho-Girl is just a ridiculous slice of life show about an idiot girl and the literal boy next door who can't stand her. It's absurd but perfect after a long, stressful day. And the episodes are only about 12 minutes long.
Fastest Finger First is a show about quiz bowl. In fact, in seems designed to teach viewers the very techniques of quiz bowling (we learn as the new quiz bowl members do). I don't know how I feel about that, exactly, but I mostly enjoy the show.
But I think my new favorite is Classroom of the Elite. It's about a government school in which the classes (A, B, C and D) are pitted against one another in an attempt to earn the most points. There's definitely some weird stuff going on, so the show is totally intriguing.
Do you watch anime? If so, do you have recommendations? If not for anime, then manga?
So we got Crunchyroll and began exploring. Sampled a few things we didn't really get into, like Restaurant to Another World, and something about a kid who constantly is forced to choose between two very bad options, and another show in which the students all went to some school to be mages. But we've found some stuff we really like, too.
But I think my new favorite is Classroom of the Elite. It's about a government school in which the classes (A, B, C and D) are pitted against one another in an attempt to earn the most points. There's definitely some weird stuff going on, so the show is totally intriguing.
Do you watch anime? If so, do you have recommendations? If not for anime, then manga?
9.23.2017
Television: The Orville, "About a Girl"
So. Bortus (who, let's be honest, is really just a discount Worf) and his mate Klyden have . . . hatched? . . . a baby girl. Thing is, in their culture being female is considered a disability. Women are weaker and inferior intellectually (or so they believe). So Bortus and Klyden want to give their baby a sex-change operation. Which is apparently a thing where they're from. But of course everyone on the ship loses their shit when they hear of this.
Eventually, watching Rankin/Bass' Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer gives Bortus fresh insight. All at once he believes their baby should remain a girl! Seriously, though—I thought in that scene Bortus was playing John and Gordon. Like, that he was pretending to go along with their "plan" to reform his way of thinking. Turns out I gave every single one of these characters too much credit. Or the show's writers. Or, really, everyone involved in any way.
Whatever. The result is litigation between Bortus and Klyden. The Orville goes to their home world for a tribunal to hear both sides. [spoilers follow] I guess the lesson is: You can't win them all? Or maybe that some societies (like patriarchal ones, perhaps) aren't going to be swayed by facts and logic? There is no changing some people's minds, no matter how much information you deal them. And some people and cultures will blindly cling to tradition rather than open their eyes.
Meanwhile, despite his defeat, Bortus still loves Klyden and loves their now son. So I guess they're just going to pretend it never happened. [end spoilers]
I have to wonder, though, why being female on the Orville would be a disability. Like, I understand the decision if they lived on their home world, where females are discriminated against. To be clear: I understand the decision, I'm not saying I agree with it. But that discrimination is not likely to happen aboard the Orville, or in any of the situations in which this child is likely to find herself (now himself) amid the Union or whatever. So this is really a matter of cultural preference. Bortus' culture values males, and somehow their baby is more valuable to them if it is male. They claim that, no, they are only trying to make their child's life better, but . . . Their child wasn't going to have a terrible life as a female. And may even have a more difficult life as a male than s/he would have otherwise. Just sayin'.
Now let's look at this episode in context of the three we've thus far seen. Was it better than the first two? Yes. But that was a very low bar. Will I watch more? I might try another one to see if they continue to make progress, but at the same time, I have so many other shows on my viewing list that I'm not 100% sure I'll stick with this one.
Eventually, watching Rankin/Bass' Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer gives Bortus fresh insight. All at once he believes their baby should remain a girl! Seriously, though—I thought in that scene Bortus was playing John and Gordon. Like, that he was pretending to go along with their "plan" to reform his way of thinking. Turns out I gave every single one of these characters too much credit. Or the show's writers. Or, really, everyone involved in any way.
Whatever. The result is litigation between Bortus and Klyden. The Orville goes to their home world for a tribunal to hear both sides. [spoilers follow] I guess the lesson is: You can't win them all? Or maybe that some societies (like patriarchal ones, perhaps) aren't going to be swayed by facts and logic? There is no changing some people's minds, no matter how much information you deal them. And some people and cultures will blindly cling to tradition rather than open their eyes.
Meanwhile, despite his defeat, Bortus still loves Klyden and loves their now son. So I guess they're just going to pretend it never happened. [end spoilers]
I have to wonder, though, why being female on the Orville would be a disability. Like, I understand the decision if they lived on their home world, where females are discriminated against. To be clear: I understand the decision, I'm not saying I agree with it. But that discrimination is not likely to happen aboard the Orville, or in any of the situations in which this child is likely to find herself (now himself) amid the Union or whatever. So this is really a matter of cultural preference. Bortus' culture values males, and somehow their baby is more valuable to them if it is male. They claim that, no, they are only trying to make their child's life better, but . . . Their child wasn't going to have a terrible life as a female. And may even have a more difficult life as a male than s/he would have otherwise. Just sayin'.
Now let's look at this episode in context of the three we've thus far seen. Was it better than the first two? Yes. But that was a very low bar. Will I watch more? I might try another one to see if they continue to make progress, but at the same time, I have so many other shows on my viewing list that I'm not 100% sure I'll stick with this one.
9.21.2017
Television: The Orville, "Command Performance"
I figured out part of what bothers me about this show (at least thus far, given it's all of two episodes into its run). The characters are constructed as very plug-and-play. They don't have depth. The whole thing is plot driven, and since the plots are formulaic and cliché, there's really very little to engage me as a viewer.
For one thing, they have already done the Ed-and-Kelly thing to death in less than two hours of show. Like, we get it. And we're already sick of it. STFU. Because you've made us care exactly not at all about you as people or your relationship past or present.
Oh, and look: the cute little prodigy of a security officer struggles when put in command? Bah. Don't care about her or her problems either.
The show is going to have to work a hell of a lot harder to form a connection between the audience and the characters. Instead, it wants us to just take things at face value. "This is a really smart, strong girl." Uh... Okay.... So? You can tell me that, and even show me that, but it won't make me care.
This guy sits on his egg and it hatches and—gasp!—it's a female baby, something that shouldn't exist! Don't care, don't care, don't care. You've barely introduced me to the character, you haven't shown me his relationship with his S.O., and you expect me to give a damn about their baby? Nope.
I usually try to give shows three episodes. I'm not sure I can choke down another one of these however. It's just so stale and has nothing new or interesting to say. Nor is it saying anything we've already heard in a new or interesting way. It feels like empty calories. I've got better things to do and better shows to watch.
For one thing, they have already done the Ed-and-Kelly thing to death in less than two hours of show. Like, we get it. And we're already sick of it. STFU. Because you've made us care exactly not at all about you as people or your relationship past or present.
Oh, and look: the cute little prodigy of a security officer struggles when put in command? Bah. Don't care about her or her problems either.
The show is going to have to work a hell of a lot harder to form a connection between the audience and the characters. Instead, it wants us to just take things at face value. "This is a really smart, strong girl." Uh... Okay.... So? You can tell me that, and even show me that, but it won't make me care.
This guy sits on his egg and it hatches and—gasp!—it's a female baby, something that shouldn't exist! Don't care, don't care, don't care. You've barely introduced me to the character, you haven't shown me his relationship with his S.O., and you expect me to give a damn about their baby? Nope.
I usually try to give shows three episodes. I'm not sure I can choke down another one of these however. It's just so stale and has nothing new or interesting to say. Nor is it saying anything we've already heard in a new or interesting way. It feels like empty calories. I've got better things to do and better shows to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)