I've just become a specialized collector. I collect TV shows about young women who become fate's bitches and are forced by supernatural forces to help the universe, all told in a drama format but with solid doses of humor.
So far I have:
Tru Calling - Amazon US - UK
Buffy The Vampire Slayer - Amazon US - UK
Wonderfalls - Amazon US - UK
Dead Like Me - Amazon US - UK
I find it amazing that so many shows can fit in such an apparently slim niche, and still be very, very different, and really good.
Anybody know any others? (This is partly retorical, to milk the "collector" joke, but you never know.)
Anon said:
Dead Like Me only ran two seasons. A movie based on the series is due out this summer, and if it does well at the box office, they may continue the series.
A DLM movie? Kool!
Laurie said...
only I wouldn't call Millie in Dead Like Me a *bitch*. In my mind she was egoless and struggling living in an ego-driven world. That is, until she became a grim reaper. But I would never call her a bitch, she was just different.
I meant "fate's bitch" in the meaning that they were not in control of things. Fate is their master. It does not mean that she was or acted like a "bitch" in the sense of bad behavior.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Raging Grannies Greet the F.C.C.
The Raging Grannies Greet the F.C.C. for net neutrality. Everybody should have the same access to bandwidth, they say.
Also from Markoff: prototype of cheap 3D-body interface for controlling avatars in a computer game or space.
Also from Markoff: prototype of cheap 3D-body interface for controlling avatars in a computer game or space.
Shutterfinger
Shutterfinger, photographic blog.
"From all accounts, Harmon Gloss FB is a wonderful paper, but why should it cost almost twice as much per sheet as one that's actually coated with silver?"
"From all accounts, Harmon Gloss FB is a wonderful paper, but why should it cost almost twice as much per sheet as one that's actually coated with silver?"
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world
I looked up films with Milton Berle, and I found It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world. (Me, I would have gone with just a single or a double "mad".) What a nice surprise, this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. Great stuff.
Thailand
One of the photographers I deal with is in Thailand at the moment, but he can't use local models, because it's illegal for a foreigner to be a professional photographer in Tailand!
Here's the king as pictured on a bank note. It is said he carries his camera everywhere.
31 other professions are apparently also barred for foreigners in Tailand, including hairdresser and designer.
I'm guessing it's meant as protection of trade. I haven't had much luck finding confirmation of these data though.
Johnston's Theory of What-to-Buy
Johnston's Theory of What-to-Buy, a theory about how to select your camera.
The great sex threat
When people defend porn, they always back up to: "we want porn to be allowed, but don't worry, we'll make sure children don't see it, then nobody will get hurt". I think though that the idea that children somehow are intrinsically damaged by seeing nudity or sex is one of the great untested assumptions of the age. It's just never been justified by reason or evidence. I admit I have the same feeling, I once dutifully removed a black-and-white erotic comic book from a childrens library. But it's just a feeling, how do we know? How do we know it's not just an irrational idea which is being strengthened by endless repetition? Where's the evidence?
None of the school pals of mine who found their father's stash turned into monsters or wrecks. Also, finding porn on the Internet is so easy now that it's must be the exception rather than the rule to find a kid who's grown up in the past 10 years who hasn't seen some. And yet I've yet to hear anybody say that the new generations are more psychologically damaged than the past ones.
Pascal, medical doctor, wrote the comments in blue below (and much more), under the alcohol post.
It can always happen that a child see by accident his parents having sex. If he knows what it means, and his parents are matter-of-fact about it, I'm ready to bet there won't be any meaningful trauma. I've got a modern book on sexuality aimed at little kids (for when the little one starts asking, which should be soon), and it explains "everything", with images leaving little room for doubt in spite of their cute style. In our (relatively) taboo-free 3rd millenium, it's the sensible AND healthy thing to do.
Now, don't nobody claim that I advised for a "practical demonstration" to complete a child's education! I won't go that far. The book also explains the very important concept of intimacy, see? Si.
Parent Alex opinionated...
"I think, in our society, the less known about parental sex the better."
Well, I grew up in the, let's say "conservative", lebanese society of the Seventies. But my sensible parents satiated all my intellectual and practical curiosity about the matters of sex when I was 5. And I feel it helped give me an immensely healthier and more relaxed attitude toward sex than my more typical schoolmates, and even University comrades in Med School!
As I said, the principle of intimacy means that parents aren't meant to give their children a live demonstration to make the course more complete. But "knowing" what goes on, on an intellectual level, does not hurt a correctly raised child, on the contrary. I might add, if a child happens to hear odd sounds coming from the bedroom of the parents, (s)he will then know to simply leave them to their intimacy. At least in my case.
None of us would exist if Mom and Dad hadn't "loved each other very very much". So no "eyew!", please. It's normal, it's God's design and Nature's working, it's part of the Universe, grow up and just deal with it.
"I was going to say misuse of alcohol can mess up your life and possible kill several other people, as if that was somehow different from sex."
Now THAT sums up the issue perfectly. :-)
What WOULD harm a child, is his parents sleeping around, or the drinking equivalent, getting drunk. Normal is normal, abuse destroys respect.
French television doesn't even put an age advisory any more if a film on national/public TV has non-sexual nudity in it. This includes a couple getting out of bed together, and clearly having slept naked together. Even includes the occasional tasteful sex scene with a reasonable level of non-explicitness, but undoubtedly naked actors.
What IS causing concerned debate in France today, is the fact that minors are getting very easy access to hardcore porn. And the concern is not even about the explicit sex! Nope, it's about the gravely deformed image of sex that most porn conveys, potentially messing up the conceptions that young teens may get regarding sex. Such as, "when she says no she means yes", "women are all secretly nymphomaniac she-dogs in heat", "swapping, slapping, dirty talking, group sex, non-consensual or ambiguous, are quite normal"... You get the general idea. Another major concern is that porn made today still slacks off regarding systematic condom use, and youngsters getting used to THAT is very bad. Aids is getting a second wind these days...
As one good friend of mine (very experienced) said to me: "Young people, teenagers, they WILL have sex; unless adults lock them up they'll take their own decisions, and our responsible job is to keep them safe by educating them the best we can. If you take a stict forbidding attitude, they may even disregard what you say just to spite you." We all know he's right. Even when risking death in the most conservatine muslim countries, many people just risk it all because the need to "just live" is too powerful to relinquish.
None of the school pals of mine who found their father's stash turned into monsters or wrecks. Also, finding porn on the Internet is so easy now that it's must be the exception rather than the rule to find a kid who's grown up in the past 10 years who hasn't seen some. And yet I've yet to hear anybody say that the new generations are more psychologically damaged than the past ones.
Pascal, medical doctor, wrote the comments in blue below (and much more), under the alcohol post.
It can always happen that a child see by accident his parents having sex. If he knows what it means, and his parents are matter-of-fact about it, I'm ready to bet there won't be any meaningful trauma. I've got a modern book on sexuality aimed at little kids (for when the little one starts asking, which should be soon), and it explains "everything", with images leaving little room for doubt in spite of their cute style. In our (relatively) taboo-free 3rd millenium, it's the sensible AND healthy thing to do.
Now, don't nobody claim that I advised for a "practical demonstration" to complete a child's education! I won't go that far. The book also explains the very important concept of intimacy, see? Si.
Parent Alex opinionated...
"I think, in our society, the less known about parental sex the better."
Well, I grew up in the, let's say "conservative", lebanese society of the Seventies. But my sensible parents satiated all my intellectual and practical curiosity about the matters of sex when I was 5. And I feel it helped give me an immensely healthier and more relaxed attitude toward sex than my more typical schoolmates, and even University comrades in Med School!
As I said, the principle of intimacy means that parents aren't meant to give their children a live demonstration to make the course more complete. But "knowing" what goes on, on an intellectual level, does not hurt a correctly raised child, on the contrary. I might add, if a child happens to hear odd sounds coming from the bedroom of the parents, (s)he will then know to simply leave them to their intimacy. At least in my case.
None of us would exist if Mom and Dad hadn't "loved each other very very much". So no "eyew!", please. It's normal, it's God's design and Nature's working, it's part of the Universe, grow up and just deal with it.
"I was going to say misuse of alcohol can mess up your life and possible kill several other people, as if that was somehow different from sex."
Now THAT sums up the issue perfectly. :-)
What WOULD harm a child, is his parents sleeping around, or the drinking equivalent, getting drunk. Normal is normal, abuse destroys respect.
French television doesn't even put an age advisory any more if a film on national/public TV has non-sexual nudity in it. This includes a couple getting out of bed together, and clearly having slept naked together. Even includes the occasional tasteful sex scene with a reasonable level of non-explicitness, but undoubtedly naked actors.
What IS causing concerned debate in France today, is the fact that minors are getting very easy access to hardcore porn. And the concern is not even about the explicit sex! Nope, it's about the gravely deformed image of sex that most porn conveys, potentially messing up the conceptions that young teens may get regarding sex. Such as, "when she says no she means yes", "women are all secretly nymphomaniac she-dogs in heat", "swapping, slapping, dirty talking, group sex, non-consensual or ambiguous, are quite normal"... You get the general idea. Another major concern is that porn made today still slacks off regarding systematic condom use, and youngsters getting used to THAT is very bad. Aids is getting a second wind these days...
As one good friend of mine (very experienced) said to me: "Young people, teenagers, they WILL have sex; unless adults lock them up they'll take their own decisions, and our responsible job is to keep them safe by educating them the best we can. If you take a stict forbidding attitude, they may even disregard what you say just to spite you." We all know he's right. Even when risking death in the most conservatine muslim countries, many people just risk it all because the need to "just live" is too powerful to relinquish.
More on Sony A350
Quick note on the Sony A350: because if the very interesting tilting-screen live-view system, I was dismayed about some reports that the camera is noisy at high ISO settings. But now this is contradicted. Odd, I will have to read more.
It seems I'm not the only one who believes that looking at a viewfinder screen is not downside but an upside because it is closer to the finished product and makes it easier to compose with the whole picture in mind. (I've argued this a couple of times before.)
It seems I'm not the only one who believes that looking at a viewfinder screen is not downside but an upside because it is closer to the finished product and makes it easier to compose with the whole picture in mind. (I've argued this a couple of times before.)
Russian Ark
So I'm finally actually watching Russian Ark.
Though I am actually more interested in the documentary about the making of it.
A whole 90-minute feature movie, filmed in one take, on steadicam, with 800 actors and more extras. It should have been impossible.
At the same time, I'm ambivalent about my awe. Is it really that great to overcome a great technical challenge, if that challenge is artificial?
The director, Alexander Sokurov, claims in interview that the technical accomplishment means nothing in and of itself, that it's only justified by what it makes possible artistically. But as far as I can see, there is nothing in this movie which demanded one single 90-minute take.
If they even had made it in three takes, say, it would have made the task so much easier, and it could easily have been stitched together seamlessly with CGI. And beyond that, I don't see how the tone of the film would have been compromised in any way if it had been produced in a traditional way, with many cuts. I know that as a viewer I don't notice cuts unless they are done in unusual ways.
It does bring up the point though: if a movie with 800 actors can be made in a single take, is it really necessary that so many directors use 30 or 50 takes of every small scene?
Though I am actually more interested in the documentary about the making of it.
A whole 90-minute feature movie, filmed in one take, on steadicam, with 800 actors and more extras. It should have been impossible.
At the same time, I'm ambivalent about my awe. Is it really that great to overcome a great technical challenge, if that challenge is artificial?
The director, Alexander Sokurov, claims in interview that the technical accomplishment means nothing in and of itself, that it's only justified by what it makes possible artistically. But as far as I can see, there is nothing in this movie which demanded one single 90-minute take.
If they even had made it in three takes, say, it would have made the task so much easier, and it could easily have been stitched together seamlessly with CGI. And beyond that, I don't see how the tone of the film would have been compromised in any way if it had been produced in a traditional way, with many cuts. I know that as a viewer I don't notice cuts unless they are done in unusual ways.
It does bring up the point though: if a movie with 800 actors can be made in a single take, is it really necessary that so many directors use 30 or 50 takes of every small scene?
Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Pogue videos
I'm just catching up on David Pogue's videos. The third-newest, about Casio's high-speed camera, is especially interesting and funny.
(Note: if you subscribe to his videos via podcasts on iTunes, the picture is much better and bigger.)
(Note: if you subscribe to his videos via podcasts on iTunes, the picture is much better and bigger.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)