Enthusiastically Ambiverted Hopepunk
While I’m not nearly as much of a movie buff as many, I do like ’em and watch ’em when I can.
This has been everywhere across the ‘net for the past day, so you’ve probably seen it…however, if you haven’t, now’s your chance.
The Star Wars trilogy, as told by someone who hasn’t actually seen the movies.
Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn’t seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.
Sometime between December 28th and January 8th, I thought this stuff was interesting. You might think so too!
For no particular reason that I can come up with, I was thinking over how I rate movies, and attempting to quantify the basic reasoning for each star of a five-star rating system. I think I’ve pretty much nailed it down.
* (one star): Two hours of my life that I won’t get back.
* * (two stars): Not a total waste of time, if the viewing cost is low enough (free coupon, someone else is renting it and I happen to be around to see it, a good Netflix plan with relatively high turnover).
* * * (three stars): Worth a rent.
* * * * (four stars): Worth seeing in the theater (at a matinee, or at an evening show if I’m either excited enough by the particular movie or feeling rich enough to afford it), possibly worth purchasing (preferably secondhand or after a while so the price has dropped, but perhaps at full price if I think it’s on the high side of four stars).
* * * * * (five stars): A keeper. Worth seeing in the theater if possible, worth owning at whatever price I think is reasonable.
Of course, as with any rating system, there’s some amount of variability, and my movie collection certainly isn’t entirely comprised of 4- and 5-star movies (Star Trek V? Honestly, it’s about a 2-star movie. But it’s Star Trek, and I’m a nerd and a completist). But on the whole, I think that’s a pretty good overview of my thought process.
For Christmas this year, Prairie and I have decided to treat ourselves and upgrade our TV set from the one I bought when I moved to Seattle seven and a half years ago (!!!!!). It’s a nice enough TV (a Sony Wega 27-inch), but it’s huge, heavy, and while still in good shape, it’s old tech. The original plan was to wait until it died, but between Sony’s generally good longevity (my parents had a little Sony 13″ TV that went for almost thirty years) and my geeky techno-lust, Prairie surprised me by suggesting that we go ahead and upgrade to the new hotness.
So, the hunt is in progress. At this point, I’m pretty much decided on a 32″ Samsung, most likely either the LN32A550 or the LN32A650, depending on where prices land in the weeks between Black Friday and Christmas.
Of course, with the jump to an HDTV comes the jump to HD programming. Day-to-day entertainment will come courtesy of Comcast — we’re already getting our cable through them, so we’ll just upgrade that to the minimum possible digital/HD package. For movies, though, we’re doing a bit of back-and-forth (though, to be honest, Prairie’s on the “back” — that is, staying with what we have — while I’m on the “forth” side of the discussion).
My movie-loving, technology-geeking little heart tends to go all a-pitter-pat at upgrading to Blu-Ray. I jumped onto the DVD bandwagon as soon as it dropped into the realm of affordability, loved the jump in video and audio quality from my old VHS tapes, and have been looking forward to the next step forward.
Prairie, however, doesn’t really see what all the fuss is about, and her approach is one that I’m having an amusingly tough time arguing against: if we can see the show and enjoy the story, than what’s the big deal? She never saw a big difference between VHS and DVD, doesn’t really care about surround sound (a moot point at the moment, as living in an apartment building means that standard stereo at reasonable levels is far more realistic than full surround and gut-thumping subwoofers — something we really wish our neighbors would realize…), and just doesn’t see the point in adding another piece of electronics and another remote to the stack we have to keep track of already.
I’ve gotta admit, it’s hard to really say, “But…it’s better!” without realizing just how foolish that sounds.
Not that I don’t try. I’d have my geek card revoked if I didn’t at least try.
(And on a not-unrelated-at-all side note, I think it works wonderfully that our respective geek levels generally balance out into reasonable end results. I don’t know how couples made of dual übergeeks can manage!)
In any case, I think part of the conversation is simply the fact that we don’t really know how much of a change we’re going to see when we upgrade. Sure, I’ve looked at all the numbers and can see the mathmatical difference between SD 640×480 and FullHD 1920×1080, I’ve done simple little experiments looking at resolution increases, and I’ve been working with digital photography long enough that I can get a feel for the difference betweeen a .3 megapixel image and a 2 megapixel image (the approximate difference between SD and FullHD). But running numbers and reading webpages is no substitute for actually seeing what happens when we plug it all together.
So I tried a little experiment today, and tossed out two questions on Twitter…
You who’ve moved from “old school” TV to a new HDTV (pref. w/some form of HD feed): is it really that big of a difference? Turned up to 11?
Same question, part 2: Along the same lines, how about the DVD to Blu-Ray transition? Again, is it that much visibly better?
…and got the following responses:
So the final consensus (admittedly, since I used Twitter, drawing from a very weighted sample of at least somewhat geeky-type people), while not clear-cut across the board, seems to be that yes, there is a difference, ranging from “better” to “A-FUCKIN’-MAZING”. We’ll just have to wait and see where we fall along that spectrum with the equipment we have (we’ll have the HDTV and HD cable from Comcast for the pretty pretty pixels, and a non-upconverting DVD/VHS combo deck for movies), and maybe see if I can find anyone with a Blu-Ray player for us to borrow for a night to help us decide if we want to add that piece, too (of course, if the Blu-Ray players don’t drop into affordability, that’ll make the whole point moot as well).
Did I miss anything?
Potentially interesting additions to people I’m following on Twitter:
I found the Joker through a Wired article yesterday (I think). Today Rachel started following me, and I found most of the rest directly and indirectly through her, except for Edward, who added me while I was exploring.
I’m not sure exactly what’s going on here, but it’s intriguing so far. While it could be a tie-in to the current movie, it’s obviously working at least somewhat on its own chronology, as (slight spoilers here) a couple of those people are no more as of the end of the movie. At the same time, a couple more of those characters haven’t popped up in the current movie timeline, so perhaps there’s some long-term advance campaign for the next movie, whenever it comes along?
In any case, they’re actually savvy enough to have some sort of actual people behind the personas; there’s been some interaction with other Twitterers that they’re not solely advertising ‘bots. They may not stay on my Twitter list long-term, but for the moment, they’ve peaked my curiosity enough to keep an eye on them.
Possibly related accounts that just appeared on Twitter in the last few days:
Really. Thanks to TrekMovie.com for posting this excerpt from a radio interview with Kevin…
Host: So thumbs up on The Watchmen, what else you got?
Smith: I saw a movie last night that I cannot talk about.
Host: Was it good?
Smith: It was phenomenal.
Host: Any stars, any break out stars, and do they trek?
Smith: The stars absolutely trek in this film. It is fantastic. Anybody who was worried doesn’t need to be worried–about this film I cannot talk about…It was in very capable hands. The director did a phenomenal job–the director and his crew. Top notch cast and the guy that plays the lead is an instant star. That dude is going to be so famous. He is so wonderful. He picked up a role that I would say is pretty challenging for someone to step into the shoes of, because it is a role that has been played before many times by the same guy.
Host: How do you out Shatner, Shatner?
Smith: I don’t know what you are talking about.
Host: I was just saying that as an expression.
Smith: Yes, absolutely, in a world of expressions, I would agree with that…I am so not good with this game, you are going to bury me man.
Host: We had you on before The Dark Knight and I remember asking you if you could direct a movie like Dark Knight and you said ‘hell no’ it was so far out of your sphere…but I bring that up to preface this. Let’s say a franchise like Star Trek, not that you have seen the movie or we are talking about the movie, but we are talking about it for example. That is something that is so dangerous to attempt. Is that the kind of project you would like to do? Would you like to be the guy who gets to do a movie like that?
Smith: I would not like to be the guy. In the case of something like Star Trek, it would take a really insanely talented filmmaker–storyteller. Like in the case of Star Trek, JJ Abrams. So leave it to the people who are best equipped for it. I am just the guy who should be watching those movies.
A couple weeks ago, I got an e-mail from Jaime Weinman, who writes for Macleans (in her words, “sort of Canada’s TIME and NEWSWEEK”), asking for a quote for an article she was working on about Pixar’s future. I agreed, and in my usual style, sent her a small book. The final article was published late in June, and — proving yet again that I just cannot write for soundbites — my quote was boiled down to one simple line:
[Non-Pixar animated films] follow the Pixar example in some respects; they’ve especially learned from the fact that Pixar’s movies all focus on male characters and appeal the most to boys. (Michael Hanscom, a computer analyst who blogs at michaelhanscom.com, dubbed WALL-E “MISOGYN-E” and says that while he likes Pixar, he’s not going to see their movies in theatres “until we see some evidence that they’ve let a girl into the clubhouse to play.”) But for the most part, these movies are far away from Pixar’s artist-oriented approach.
Heh. Not at all inaccurate (except, perhaps, for titling me a ‘computer analyst,’ as flattering as that is) — and believe me, this is not a complaint, I don’t envy Jaime or her editors the task of boiling my response down to something that would fit within the scope of the article — but for the sake of completion, under the jump is my full response to her question. If you’ve read my earlier posts on this matter, there are no big surprises awaiting.
Last night, Prairie and I watched The Mist, the recent adaptation of an old Stephen King short story.
Short review: for the first 120 minutes or so, while we had some quibbles with the decisions made, it’s a remarkably faithful adaptation of the original story, and we were really enjoying it. Unfortunately, the last five minutes of the film completely ruined it for us.
If you rent it, I strongly recommend stopping it about five minutes before the end, right about the 1:20 mark. That would be a worthwhile ending, and one that’s more or less true to the original story.
Spoilers after the jump…
A bit of pseudo-Shakespearean silliness, originally by ceruleanst:
ACT I SCENE 2. A road, morning. Enter a carriage, with JULES and VINCENT, murderers.
J: And know’st thou what the French name cottage pie?
V: Say they not cottage pie, in their own tongue?
J: But nay, their tongues, for speech and taste alike
Are strange to ours, with their own history:
Gaul knoweth not a cottage from a house.
V: What say they then, pray?
J: Hachis Parmentier.
V: Hachis Parmentier! What name they cream?
J: Cream is but cream, only they say le crème.
V: What do they name black pudding?
J: I know not;
I visited no inn it could be bought.
J: My pardon; did I break thy concentration?
Continue! Ah, but now thy tongue is still.
Allow me then to offer a response.
Describe Marsellus Wallace to me, pray.
B: What?
J: What country dost thou hail from?
B: What?
J: How passing strange, for I have traveled far,
And never have I heard tell of this What.
What language speak they in the land of What?
B: What?
J: The Queen’s own English, base knave, dost thou speak it?
B: Aye!
J: Then hearken to my words and answer them!
Describe to me Marsellus Wallace!
B: What?
JULES presses his knife to BRETT’s throat
J: Speak ‘What’ again! Thou cur, cry ‘What’ again!
I dare thee utter ‘What’ again but once!
I dare thee twice and spit upon thy name!
Now, paint for me a portraiture in words,
If thou hast any in thy head but ‘What’,
Of Marsellus Wallace!
B: He is dark.
J: Aye, and what more?
B: His head is shaven bald.
J: Has he the semblance of a harlot?
B: What?
JULES strikes and BRETT cries out
J: Has he the semblance of a harlot?
B: Nay!
J: Then why didst thou attempt to bed him thus?
B: I did not!
J: Aye, thou didst! O, aye, thou didst!
Thou hoped to rape him like a chattel whore,
And sooth, Lord Wallace is displeased to bed
With anyone but she to whom he wed.
(via Boing Boing)
Last weekend, Prairie and I went out to see I Am Legend at the local second-run theater, and we both came out with the same opinion — not a bad flick, until the end. For some reason, the last ten minutes or so of the film completely diverge from everything that had been set up until that point, taking what had been an interesting apocalyptic zombie film and ruining it for us with an ending that didn’t make any sense.
When we got home, I did a little poking around, and read on the film’s Wikipedia entry that the theatrical ending was actually (and unsurprisingly) a studio-mandated reshoot, and differed drastically from the ending as originally shot. Prairie and I were planning on renting the DVD release to see the original ending, but now, it’s been leaked to the web…and it is so, so much better than the crap that was released to the theaters. Obviously, you shouldn’t watch this if you haven’t seen the film and/or are worried about spoilers, but if you weren’t happy with the film as released, you really should check this out.