A friend sent me a link to this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
It is titled "How Companies Learn Your Secrets" and is primarily about retailers (using Target as an example) using data mining and targeted promotions to make people better customers. Notably, figuring out when a woman is starting her 2nd trimester based on what she buys and sending her tailored coupon offers to change her shopping habits. While the reporter didn't have access to the data he needed to prove it works (in fairness, he admits this) it sure seems to based on what he presented. Slightly creepy.
Underlying that, however, it is about learned behavior - what the author calls the cue-routine-reward loop. This is the interesting part.
We've all heard about muscle memory. We all know how hard it can be to break a habit, and how often even after we 'break' it we regress. Our brain is capable of being programed to do certain tasks (even complex ones) without much or any conscious thought. The reporter used backing out of your driveway as an example - when you first learn to drive backing up is hard; lots of actions to perform in the correct order. If you've been driving for years you probably back out of the driveway without thinking about it. I sure do. Once you have you get a tiny mental 'reward' - stress of backing up drops off and you're on your way. Cue: getting in the car. Routine: back out. Reward: hard part done, into drive and go! Yay!
To break bad habits it helps to recognize both the cue and the reward, while what we naturally focus on is the routine. If we just change the routine and fail to recognize the cue or provide a reward, we'll probably repeat the old routine if presented with the cue.
The human brain is also interesting... and slightly creepy.
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Monday, October 15, 2012
Thursday, July 5, 2012
War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition
War in the Pacific: Admiral’s Edition is a gigantic computer game – I got it for Christmas
The game covers the Pacific Theater of WWII. The game map covers about half the Earth – from the Arctic Circle to south of New Zealand and Australia, from the US Pacific Coast to the western border of India. The map is hexed-based, with hexes being 40 nautical miles across. Individual ships – including individual merchantmen, PT Boats, and major landing craft are represented. Yes, you can give orders to individual PT boats. Ground units vary in size from individual companies to corps with their subordinate components tracked at the squad level (though service and non-combat support units are somewhat abstracted). Most frightening of all, however, while air units are given orders at the squadron/group level, their component aircraft are tracked individually as are, separately, their individual pilots! The Allies will have over 100,000 aircraft available over the course of the game.
Units (ground, air, and ships) can all be damaged, and except for ships can be fatigued or suffer from low morale. All units also have skill as do, separately, their commanders. For the expenditure of ‘political points’ commanders may be reassigned. The subordinate components of each unit have their own stats, too, naturally.
Logistics? Oh yeah. In addition to moving ground and air units around, ships can carry four types of cargo: “resources” (raw materials), “oil”, “fuel” (ship fuel), and “supplies” (everything from beans, bullets, and gas to spare parts, personnel, and bombs. Some special items, such as mines, are further limited in their availability. Road and rail nets play their own part – you start wishing you had railroads everywhere.
All in all, it is truly a mega game in both scale and detail.
Orders are on the “WeGo” model: both sides (one or, unusually, both of which may be AI) give orders for the turn (which may be one or two days) then the game executes the orders without further player input. This frequently results in a desire to relieve (or, sometimes, summarily execute) subordinates. PBEM is available – and not for the faint of heart. It seems typical for the game to advance at about one game day per real day – meaning to play the entire war takes literally years.
Play vs. the AI goes rather faster – in the game I started against the Japanese AI in January I’m now up to May of 1943. The AI, as is typical, just isn’t up to human level, however, so I’m already about a year ahead of history in my counter-offensives while having suffered lighter than historical losses. I plan to play the game through to the end, however, to get a feel for the capabilities of late-war Allied units and positions.
The game is by no means perfect – one major gripe I have is that there is no way to expend the road net (several major roads such as the Alaska-Canada highway and the Burma Road thus aren’t represented at all), and the land combat/logistic engine are by a long shot the weakest link. This makes the China portion of the campaign rather frustrating (quite aside from the frustration inherent in having obsolete equipment, minimal supplies, and incompetent commanders). The Japanese player (or AI) can deviate from historical production, but the Allies can't - they get what they got.
Some of the frustrating aspects, however, give one a real appreciation for history and the problems the real commanders had. The horrifyingly ineffective early-war US torpedoes are faithfully replicated, which means that in 1942 you fire dozens of torpedoes for every hit that actually detonates.
The editor is reasonable and has a good amount of flexibility.
All in all this is one of the best computer games I’ve ever played.
The game covers the Pacific Theater of WWII. The game map covers about half the Earth – from the Arctic Circle to south of New Zealand and Australia, from the US Pacific Coast to the western border of India. The map is hexed-based, with hexes being 40 nautical miles across. Individual ships – including individual merchantmen, PT Boats, and major landing craft are represented. Yes, you can give orders to individual PT boats. Ground units vary in size from individual companies to corps with their subordinate components tracked at the squad level (though service and non-combat support units are somewhat abstracted). Most frightening of all, however, while air units are given orders at the squadron/group level, their component aircraft are tracked individually as are, separately, their individual pilots! The Allies will have over 100,000 aircraft available over the course of the game.
Units (ground, air, and ships) can all be damaged, and except for ships can be fatigued or suffer from low morale. All units also have skill as do, separately, their commanders. For the expenditure of ‘political points’ commanders may be reassigned. The subordinate components of each unit have their own stats, too, naturally.
Logistics? Oh yeah. In addition to moving ground and air units around, ships can carry four types of cargo: “resources” (raw materials), “oil”, “fuel” (ship fuel), and “supplies” (everything from beans, bullets, and gas to spare parts, personnel, and bombs. Some special items, such as mines, are further limited in their availability. Road and rail nets play their own part – you start wishing you had railroads everywhere.
All in all, it is truly a mega game in both scale and detail.
Orders are on the “WeGo” model: both sides (one or, unusually, both of which may be AI) give orders for the turn (which may be one or two days) then the game executes the orders without further player input. This frequently results in a desire to relieve (or, sometimes, summarily execute) subordinates. PBEM is available – and not for the faint of heart. It seems typical for the game to advance at about one game day per real day – meaning to play the entire war takes literally years.
Play vs. the AI goes rather faster – in the game I started against the Japanese AI in January I’m now up to May of 1943. The AI, as is typical, just isn’t up to human level, however, so I’m already about a year ahead of history in my counter-offensives while having suffered lighter than historical losses. I plan to play the game through to the end, however, to get a feel for the capabilities of late-war Allied units and positions.
The game is by no means perfect – one major gripe I have is that there is no way to expend the road net (several major roads such as the Alaska-Canada highway and the Burma Road thus aren’t represented at all), and the land combat/logistic engine are by a long shot the weakest link. This makes the China portion of the campaign rather frustrating (quite aside from the frustration inherent in having obsolete equipment, minimal supplies, and incompetent commanders). The Japanese player (or AI) can deviate from historical production, but the Allies can't - they get what they got.
Some of the frustrating aspects, however, give one a real appreciation for history and the problems the real commanders had. The horrifyingly ineffective early-war US torpedoes are faithfully replicated, which means that in 1942 you fire dozens of torpedoes for every hit that actually detonates.
The editor is reasonable and has a good amount of flexibility.
All in all this is one of the best computer games I’ve ever played.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Food Tablets, Day 3 (Final)
Sunday morning weight: 188lbs
Monday morning weight: 186lbs
Tuesday morning weight: 183lbs
Final weight: 181 lbs
Comment: with my fourth data point showing a continued decline at an unhealthy rate, I'm stopping the experiment.
Steps Sunday: 8,789
Steps Monday: 9,652
Steps Tuesday: 7,979
Comment: half a mile of jogging yesterday; steps below average but well above my minimum goal. The average of the three days is above my baseline average.
Tablets taken: 12 (total 36 over three days)
Notes: again, minimal hunger, good energy level and alertness, no negative effects except the weight loss noted above. No odd dreams. I'll post a follow-up tomorrow about how going back onto normal food goes.
Summary: assuming no ill effects today, I'm calling this experiment a minimal success. The tablets seem to have the ability to keep energy up for a day or so without ill effects, which would be useful for 'patrol' situations or perhaps as an ultralight emergency food ration (for an EDC, perhaps). Having a bottle on hand as part of a comprehensive emergency preparedness package is probably worth it, more than one bottle per family or other small group is probably overkill. For my part, I'm going to keep a bottle on-hand.
Thanks to everyone who made suggestions or comments. I hope I've provided some useful data.
Monday morning weight: 186lbs
Tuesday morning weight: 183lbs
Final weight: 181 lbs
Comment: with my fourth data point showing a continued decline at an unhealthy rate, I'm stopping the experiment.
Steps Sunday: 8,789
Steps Monday: 9,652
Steps Tuesday: 7,979
Comment: half a mile of jogging yesterday; steps below average but well above my minimum goal. The average of the three days is above my baseline average.
Tablets taken: 12 (total 36 over three days)
Notes: again, minimal hunger, good energy level and alertness, no negative effects except the weight loss noted above. No odd dreams. I'll post a follow-up tomorrow about how going back onto normal food goes.
Summary: assuming no ill effects today, I'm calling this experiment a minimal success. The tablets seem to have the ability to keep energy up for a day or so without ill effects, which would be useful for 'patrol' situations or perhaps as an ultralight emergency food ration (for an EDC, perhaps). Having a bottle on hand as part of a comprehensive emergency preparedness package is probably worth it, more than one bottle per family or other small group is probably overkill. For my part, I'm going to keep a bottle on-hand.
Thanks to everyone who made suggestions or comments. I hope I've provided some useful data.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Food Tablets, Day 2
Sunday morning weight: 188lbs
Monday morning weight: 186lbs
Tuesday morning weight: 183lbs
Comment: ok, that's not a good trend. I'm going to go for one more day to see if it levels out (note I was fairly dehydrated this morning, which might account for a pound or so). If it doesn't, I'm going to abort.
Steps Sunday: 8,789
Steps Monday: 9,652
Comment: quite a bit above average, and includes one mile of jogging.
Tablets taken: 12
Notes: as with Sunday, only minor hunger now and again. I actually felt a little more awake and alert than normal, possibly unrelated. I went to bed much later than normal for me, though I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a causal link with the food tablets.
Monday morning weight: 186lbs
Tuesday morning weight: 183lbs
Comment: ok, that's not a good trend. I'm going to go for one more day to see if it levels out (note I was fairly dehydrated this morning, which might account for a pound or so). If it doesn't, I'm going to abort.
Steps Sunday: 8,789
Steps Monday: 9,652
Comment: quite a bit above average, and includes one mile of jogging.
Tablets taken: 12
Notes: as with Sunday, only minor hunger now and again. I actually felt a little more awake and alert than normal, possibly unrelated. I went to bed much later than normal for me, though I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a causal link with the food tablets.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Food Tablets, Day 1
Sunday morning weight: 188lbs
Monday morning weight: 186lbs
Comment: within normal variation so far.
Steps Sunday: 8,789
Comment: actually a little above my average, though pretty much all walking or mowing the lawn.
Tablets taken: 12
Notes: I felt a little hungry now and then, but it never exceeded the normal "hmm, I should think about eating soon" level.
Monday morning weight: 186lbs
Comment: within normal variation so far.
Steps Sunday: 8,789
Comment: actually a little above my average, though pretty much all walking or mowing the lawn.
Tablets taken: 12
Notes: I felt a little hungry now and then, but it never exceeded the normal "hmm, I should think about eating soon" level.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Experiment, D-4
I am going to conduct an experiment. I am going to try to eat nothing except food tablets ( http://www.survivaltabs.com/ ) for a week, starting July 10th. If you have suggestions on how to conduct this experiment better, please comment here before the 10th.
Why? I’m trying to determine if these things actually work, and if so how well. If they do, they’re an ideal ‘patrol’, survival, or hiking ration (lightweight, long shelf life, no preparation, cheap). However, their claims make me skeptical that they will, in fact, work. Hence, the experiment. :-)
Process:
I will take by mouth each day only water, prescription medication, and the tablets. No juice, alcohol, or anything else that has calories.
I will put one tablet in my mouth each hour and let it dissolve (manufacturer directed method). I will drink water as I routinely do (several quarts per day).
Each morning I will record my weight.
I will wear a pedometer, and record my total steps each day. This is intended to be a rough measure of my activity level. I’ve been wearing the pedometer for three weeks to give me a baseline to work from. My minimum level is 7,500 steps per day (yes, I work a desk job).
Variations and limitations:
I will start by taking the recommended 12 tablets per day. Should this seem to be insufficient, I will increase this up to 24 tablets per day. I will record how many tablets I actually consume each day.
If I experience a rapid weight loss or any adverse medical condition (dizziness, nausea, etc.) I will abort the experiment.
Results:
This experiment will be considered a partial success if I can go for at least three days on not more than 24 tablets per day with no ill effects and no real reduction in my activity level. The food tablets would still work as a patrol or hiking ration, or a supplemental survival ration. I would keep a few bottles in stock for these purposes.
This experiment will be considered a complete success if I can go for the full week on not more than 12 tablets per day with no ill effects and no real reduction in my activity level. The food tablets would be exactly what they’re advertized as: a survival ration, and a good one. I’d keep a reasonable number of bottles in stock along with my other emergency food stocks. At ~$30 for a 15 day supply with a ten-year shelf life they’re much cheaper to stock than most foods.
Reporting:
I’ll do my best to post status updates here daily (tablets eaten, steps taken, weight, and any comments).
Why? I’m trying to determine if these things actually work, and if so how well. If they do, they’re an ideal ‘patrol’, survival, or hiking ration (lightweight, long shelf life, no preparation, cheap). However, their claims make me skeptical that they will, in fact, work. Hence, the experiment. :-)
Process:
I will take by mouth each day only water, prescription medication, and the tablets. No juice, alcohol, or anything else that has calories.
I will put one tablet in my mouth each hour and let it dissolve (manufacturer directed method). I will drink water as I routinely do (several quarts per day).
Each morning I will record my weight.
I will wear a pedometer, and record my total steps each day. This is intended to be a rough measure of my activity level. I’ve been wearing the pedometer for three weeks to give me a baseline to work from. My minimum level is 7,500 steps per day (yes, I work a desk job).
Variations and limitations:
I will start by taking the recommended 12 tablets per day. Should this seem to be insufficient, I will increase this up to 24 tablets per day. I will record how many tablets I actually consume each day.
If I experience a rapid weight loss or any adverse medical condition (dizziness, nausea, etc.) I will abort the experiment.
Results:
This experiment will be considered a partial success if I can go for at least three days on not more than 24 tablets per day with no ill effects and no real reduction in my activity level. The food tablets would still work as a patrol or hiking ration, or a supplemental survival ration. I would keep a few bottles in stock for these purposes.
This experiment will be considered a complete success if I can go for the full week on not more than 12 tablets per day with no ill effects and no real reduction in my activity level. The food tablets would be exactly what they’re advertized as: a survival ration, and a good one. I’d keep a reasonable number of bottles in stock along with my other emergency food stocks. At ~$30 for a 15 day supply with a ten-year shelf life they’re much cheaper to stock than most foods.
Reporting:
I’ll do my best to post status updates here daily (tablets eaten, steps taken, weight, and any comments).
Monday, December 20, 2010
Movies from "Childrens" Books
I'm going to compare and contrast two movies I've just seen:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part I)
Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Ahem: SPOILER WARNING!
Let's start with the things they have in common. I liked both the books these were based on. They are often thought of as "children's books" but really aren't (though they can be read to and by children). The casting in both series is magnificent, demonstrating both skill (adult actors) and luck (child actors who have grown into their parts well). Both are neither the first nor (presumably) the last in a series of profitable movies.
Despite that, they couldn't be more different.
It really comes down to the scripts, I think. Harry Potter appears to have been written by someone who read the Cliff Notes, once, a while back, and wasn't paying much attention. "Hmm. I can't remember how this bit went. Well, I'll just throw in an action sequence; the audience is just a bunch of kids, they won't know the difference." Narnia seems to have been written by someone who has read the books many times, liked and understood them, and realizes that you can't simply transpose a book into a shooting script if you want a good movie. They also realize that the audience of the movies will be quite different from the one the books were written for. This means spending minutes of screen time to replace things C.S. Lewis could convey in a phrase.
Lewis writes "the London Blitz" and his audience knows exactly what he's talking about. If the movies had just had someone mention the Blitz, most US movie-goers would say "what's that?" and never understand where these characters are coming from. So, they added the opening sequence of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe with the Luftwaffe bombing London. Was it in the book? No. Would it have been needed to make a movie in the 1950's? No. Did I, personally, need it? No. Is it necessary to make a movie for the US in the 2000's in general? Yes. Was it well done and woven smoothly into the movie, complete with a visual reference during the climactic battle? Yes. Had they very clearly done their homework? Yes. I've seen bombing sequences in war movies that were less accurate and realistic.
Another difference is the use of CGI and special effects. The Harry Potter movies have been rather bad at this: 'hey look, a CGI monster!' Now, we know that the creatures in Narnia are just as fake. However...
While watching the end credits of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, I noted the VERY large number of effects artists and such. I thought at the time "wow, that sea serpent and the dragon must have taken a lot of work! Well, they were worth it." It wasn't until I'd left the theater and gotten home that I realized Reepicheep wasn't REAL! That is the difference between good SFX and bad, people! It isn't how high tech or how wild and scary you make things. It is about making the audience forget that Reepicheep didn't need to stop by the props department for his sword. It is about the NASA engineers going to the makers of the Apollo 13 movie and saying 'hey, where'd you find that footage of the launch? We'd never seen that before.' 'Um... that was special effects.' 'Really?!'
Now, was Voyage a completely faithful re-telling of the book? No, and in some cases I think they could have done better. The Dufflepods were a little disappointing. The quest to find the seven lost lords doesn't seem to have been enough motivation for modern audiences, so an additional motivation has been added: people are being taken by a green mist, and must be rescued. I'm not thrilled by that change, but they wove it into the movie well enough. Tilda Swinton is back as the White Witch. Yes, she died in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That didn't stop her from appearing (in a VERY nice bit) in Prince Caspian, and it doesn't stop her now. Hey, if C.S. Lewis had had Tilda Swinton playing the White Witch in his books, she'd have gotten more time in them, too!
On the other hand, I was very surprised and quite gratified that Aslan saying "I am known by another name in your world" was left in. I would have expected modern Hollywood to shun a Christian reference that blatant. Of course, it is Christmas season. :-)
Kudos also for including, with the closing credits, illustrations from the books. That was a nice touch, though the clothing depicted had almost nothing in common with that in the movie.
The Dawntreader herself is a very nice piece of work. She's quite believable as a Narnian ship on the outside, though her interior doesn't give the impression of a cramped ship of that type.
All of this is in contrast to Deathly Hallows (Part I). Now, I'm one of the people who signed a petition to have the books split into two movies each all the way back at Book 4, but that was because there was a lot of plot in those pages. I'm glad they finally split Book 7, but could they have shoved in some of that plot instead of chases through the woods? Be warned: re-read the book first, or you won't understand what's going on. Critical elements are missing or altered to the point that they don't make sense anymore. Continuity with the previous movie is lacking. Why are Harry and Ginny kissing? Well, they're in a relationship. Um... in the BOOKS, yes. In Movie 6, she kissed Harry ONCE and told him "that can stay in here too, if you want." While the BOOK makes several references to a relationship stemming from their first kiss (which was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT), the MOVIE implies that's it for the year.
Overall Voyage of the Dawntreader is an excellent step up from the slight stumble of Prince Caspian, while Deathly Hallows (Part I) is just another in a series of movies that make you want to read the books again so you can figure out what is going on.
See Voyage of the Dawntreader if you like fantasy, or Narnia, or just well done movies in general.
Don't bother with Deathly Hallows unless you're a hard-core Potter fan.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part I)
Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Ahem: SPOILER WARNING!
Let's start with the things they have in common. I liked both the books these were based on. They are often thought of as "children's books" but really aren't (though they can be read to and by children). The casting in both series is magnificent, demonstrating both skill (adult actors) and luck (child actors who have grown into their parts well). Both are neither the first nor (presumably) the last in a series of profitable movies.
Despite that, they couldn't be more different.
It really comes down to the scripts, I think. Harry Potter appears to have been written by someone who read the Cliff Notes, once, a while back, and wasn't paying much attention. "Hmm. I can't remember how this bit went. Well, I'll just throw in an action sequence; the audience is just a bunch of kids, they won't know the difference." Narnia seems to have been written by someone who has read the books many times, liked and understood them, and realizes that you can't simply transpose a book into a shooting script if you want a good movie. They also realize that the audience of the movies will be quite different from the one the books were written for. This means spending minutes of screen time to replace things C.S. Lewis could convey in a phrase.
Lewis writes "the London Blitz" and his audience knows exactly what he's talking about. If the movies had just had someone mention the Blitz, most US movie-goers would say "what's that?" and never understand where these characters are coming from. So, they added the opening sequence of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe with the Luftwaffe bombing London. Was it in the book? No. Would it have been needed to make a movie in the 1950's? No. Did I, personally, need it? No. Is it necessary to make a movie for the US in the 2000's in general? Yes. Was it well done and woven smoothly into the movie, complete with a visual reference during the climactic battle? Yes. Had they very clearly done their homework? Yes. I've seen bombing sequences in war movies that were less accurate and realistic.
Another difference is the use of CGI and special effects. The Harry Potter movies have been rather bad at this: 'hey look, a CGI monster!' Now, we know that the creatures in Narnia are just as fake. However...
While watching the end credits of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, I noted the VERY large number of effects artists and such. I thought at the time "wow, that sea serpent and the dragon must have taken a lot of work! Well, they were worth it." It wasn't until I'd left the theater and gotten home that I realized Reepicheep wasn't REAL! That is the difference between good SFX and bad, people! It isn't how high tech or how wild and scary you make things. It is about making the audience forget that Reepicheep didn't need to stop by the props department for his sword. It is about the NASA engineers going to the makers of the Apollo 13 movie and saying 'hey, where'd you find that footage of the launch? We'd never seen that before.' 'Um... that was special effects.' 'Really?!'
Now, was Voyage a completely faithful re-telling of the book? No, and in some cases I think they could have done better. The Dufflepods were a little disappointing. The quest to find the seven lost lords doesn't seem to have been enough motivation for modern audiences, so an additional motivation has been added: people are being taken by a green mist, and must be rescued. I'm not thrilled by that change, but they wove it into the movie well enough. Tilda Swinton is back as the White Witch. Yes, she died in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That didn't stop her from appearing (in a VERY nice bit) in Prince Caspian, and it doesn't stop her now. Hey, if C.S. Lewis had had Tilda Swinton playing the White Witch in his books, she'd have gotten more time in them, too!
On the other hand, I was very surprised and quite gratified that Aslan saying "I am known by another name in your world" was left in. I would have expected modern Hollywood to shun a Christian reference that blatant. Of course, it is Christmas season. :-)
Kudos also for including, with the closing credits, illustrations from the books. That was a nice touch, though the clothing depicted had almost nothing in common with that in the movie.
The Dawntreader herself is a very nice piece of work. She's quite believable as a Narnian ship on the outside, though her interior doesn't give the impression of a cramped ship of that type.
All of this is in contrast to Deathly Hallows (Part I). Now, I'm one of the people who signed a petition to have the books split into two movies each all the way back at Book 4, but that was because there was a lot of plot in those pages. I'm glad they finally split Book 7, but could they have shoved in some of that plot instead of chases through the woods? Be warned: re-read the book first, or you won't understand what's going on. Critical elements are missing or altered to the point that they don't make sense anymore. Continuity with the previous movie is lacking. Why are Harry and Ginny kissing? Well, they're in a relationship. Um... in the BOOKS, yes. In Movie 6, she kissed Harry ONCE and told him "that can stay in here too, if you want." While the BOOK makes several references to a relationship stemming from their first kiss (which was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT), the MOVIE implies that's it for the year.
Overall Voyage of the Dawntreader is an excellent step up from the slight stumble of Prince Caspian, while Deathly Hallows (Part I) is just another in a series of movies that make you want to read the books again so you can figure out what is going on.
See Voyage of the Dawntreader if you like fantasy, or Narnia, or just well done movies in general.
Don't bother with Deathly Hallows unless you're a hard-core Potter fan.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Arsenal of Democracy
Arsenal of Democracy is a computer game that is a spin-off of the Hearts of Iron series. It is an strategic level simulation of the period surrounding (and including) WWII.
It has a number of interesting features, several excellent ones, very few bad ones, and is a quite absorbing game to play.
Some real pros for me:
You can start as early as 1936, or well into the war. There are even several post-WWII scenarios running into the 1960's.
You can play as any nation. Yes, you can play as El Salvador or Yugoslavia if you want (there are AARs on the game's forum where people have done both), though don't expect to get far. :-)
They'd tried very hard, and IMO succeeded, in striking the proper balance between playability and realism on the economic & industrial front. A few examples: production needs a number of things, including resources (Energy, Metal, and Rare Materials), factories, and infrastructure (which acts as a multiplier for the factories - with no infrastructure a factory doesn't produce anything). You don't just order units at will - setting up a production line requires 'retooling' time (several months) during which no progress is made. Further, each serial build on a production line is a little faster (up to a point, of course). It is thus MUCH more efficient to build ten units in series than it is in parallel, though of course parallel builds are worth the trade off sometimes.
Logistics are extensive and vital, but still simple enough (and can be automated) to be used. Units require various amounts of 'supplies' and oil, and use more when in combat. You really need good supply lines to win, and they are vulnerable to attack.
The gameplay is smooth, and very addictive. Just one more week... wait, new tech, gotta retool my production... stand down the air attacks so they can upgrade... maybe I'll just keep playing 'till they're done...
The game is easy to mod. Very easy. If you can edit a text file, literally, you can mod this game. This solves the biggest problem with the game IMO...
Con:
They nerfed the USA. OK, a lot of WWII games do that. If you don't the end result is more or less a foregone conclusion. To their credit they nerfed it a lot less than some (I'm looking at YOU, Strategic Command: European Theater), and thanks to the high modability you can un-nerf the US.
My second-biggest complaint: you get messages telling you how various historical turning points turned out (annexations, treaties, incidents, etc.) which is good, but there seems to be no way in-game to figure out what the situation was! OK, everyone playing this type of game is going to know what "Germany claims Sudetenland" means, but I had to look up "The 2-26 Incident" (attempted coup in Japan, which may or may not succeed in game) and I'm something of a WWII buff! Events which you actually decide on or happen primarily to your country get explanatory text, but the notification you get when they happen to someone else seems to have no way to access that text. :-(
A single unit is a ground division, capital ship or group of lighter ships, or a wing of aircraft. The map is region-based, not hex-based (a minor con). I spend quite a lot of my time on the production screen watching my builds and managing my economy, rather less on actual combat ops. Units also need leaders (historical generals and admirals) who have varying skills and special abilities. Research teams have both skills and specialties: Boeing will research an airplane tech a lot faster than the New York Naval Yard, but the NYNY is much better at ship tech. You are actually much better off assigning a low-skill team that closely matches the tech to research it than a high-skill team that doesn't. Tech teams and your political leaders, who also have various abilities, come and go over time; quite appropriate, since a full game lasts 28 years!
All in all a great game, especially for only $20.
It has a number of interesting features, several excellent ones, very few bad ones, and is a quite absorbing game to play.
Some real pros for me:
You can start as early as 1936, or well into the war. There are even several post-WWII scenarios running into the 1960's.
You can play as any nation. Yes, you can play as El Salvador or Yugoslavia if you want (there are AARs on the game's forum where people have done both), though don't expect to get far. :-)
They'd tried very hard, and IMO succeeded, in striking the proper balance between playability and realism on the economic & industrial front. A few examples: production needs a number of things, including resources (Energy, Metal, and Rare Materials), factories, and infrastructure (which acts as a multiplier for the factories - with no infrastructure a factory doesn't produce anything). You don't just order units at will - setting up a production line requires 'retooling' time (several months) during which no progress is made. Further, each serial build on a production line is a little faster (up to a point, of course). It is thus MUCH more efficient to build ten units in series than it is in parallel, though of course parallel builds are worth the trade off sometimes.
Logistics are extensive and vital, but still simple enough (and can be automated) to be used. Units require various amounts of 'supplies' and oil, and use more when in combat. You really need good supply lines to win, and they are vulnerable to attack.
The gameplay is smooth, and very addictive. Just one more week... wait, new tech, gotta retool my production... stand down the air attacks so they can upgrade... maybe I'll just keep playing 'till they're done...
The game is easy to mod. Very easy. If you can edit a text file, literally, you can mod this game. This solves the biggest problem with the game IMO...
Con:
They nerfed the USA. OK, a lot of WWII games do that. If you don't the end result is more or less a foregone conclusion. To their credit they nerfed it a lot less than some (I'm looking at YOU, Strategic Command: European Theater), and thanks to the high modability you can un-nerf the US.
My second-biggest complaint: you get messages telling you how various historical turning points turned out (annexations, treaties, incidents, etc.) which is good, but there seems to be no way in-game to figure out what the situation was! OK, everyone playing this type of game is going to know what "Germany claims Sudetenland" means, but I had to look up "The 2-26 Incident" (attempted coup in Japan, which may or may not succeed in game) and I'm something of a WWII buff! Events which you actually decide on or happen primarily to your country get explanatory text, but the notification you get when they happen to someone else seems to have no way to access that text. :-(
A single unit is a ground division, capital ship or group of lighter ships, or a wing of aircraft. The map is region-based, not hex-based (a minor con). I spend quite a lot of my time on the production screen watching my builds and managing my economy, rather less on actual combat ops. Units also need leaders (historical generals and admirals) who have varying skills and special abilities. Research teams have both skills and specialties: Boeing will research an airplane tech a lot faster than the New York Naval Yard, but the NYNY is much better at ship tech. You are actually much better off assigning a low-skill team that closely matches the tech to research it than a high-skill team that doesn't. Tech teams and your political leaders, who also have various abilities, come and go over time; quite appropriate, since a full game lasts 28 years!
All in all a great game, especially for only $20.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Robin Hood: Men Not In Tights
Spoilers! Spoilers! Spoilers!
Saturday I want to see the 2010 version of Robin Hood (Russell Crowe, etc.). This is the fifth version of the Robin Hood legend I've seen as a movie. In order, my favorites (and who played Robin Hood in each) are:
#1 The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) (Errol Flynn)
#2 Robin Hood (2010) (Russell Crowe)
#3 Robin Hood (1973) (Brian Bedford - Voice; Disney Animated)
#4 Robin Hood: Men In Tights (1993) (Cary Elwes)
#5 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) (Kevin Costner)
While the new movie gets 2nd overall, I think Russell Crowe is a dead heat with Errol Flynn for best Robin (Hood/Locksely/Longstride...). They play somewhat different takes on the role, naturally.
Russell Crowe isn't your typical Robin Hood. The movie has chosen to blend portions of the original legend, the "standard" legend as seen in several of the above movies, historical events, and their own brainstorms to create a new story. The result is a satisfying and worthwhile movie which is clearly positioning itself for a sequel.
Robin Longstride (Crowe) is an archer in Richard Lionheart's army, fighting its way home from the crusades. When Richard is killed in a siege, Robin and three of his fellows (including Little John and Will Scarlet) decide there's no point hanging around and split off to make their own way home. Along the way accident causes them in come upon a group of Frenchmen who have ambushed a party led by Sir Robert Loxley, who was bringing Richard's crown back to England. Robin sees an opportunity: take the dead men's equipment and use the crown as their passport back to England. Robin pretends to be Sir Robert, but clearly has no interest in the crown or his assumed title beyond its ability to get him a ship home.
After delivering the crown and seeing Prince John crowned as the new king, Robin, somewhat on a whim, decides to head in the direction of Sherwood, where Sir Robert came from. As he travels he eventually decides to return Sir Robert's sword to his father (the knight's dying wish), and his companions decide this suits them as well as anything else might.
And now The Plot intervenes. The Loxley's (including Sir Robert's wife... err, widow Marion) will loose their lands if Sir Robert's father Sir Walter dies without an heir. Sir Walter thus asks Robin (whose history is known to him) to play the part of Sir Robert for a time.
What is Robin's history? His father wrote what looks suspiciously like an early draft of the Magna Carta. No, I'm not kidding. He got executed for that and related actions (no real shock there). Sir Walter appears to have been one of his followers/comrades.
Marion is at first rather understandably upset, but slowly comes around as Robin takes some actions on behalf of the local peasants (including stealing some grain from the church with the assistance of Friar Tuck).
Meanwhile, King Phillip of France has suborned one of King John's trusted knights, Sir Godfrey. Godfrey persuades John to let him raise money from the barons by force, and then commits atrocities to turn the barons against John, thus weakening England in advance of a french invasion. Naturally they wind up raiding Nottingham and get clobbered in the process by Robin's forces. King John, aided by Sir William Marshal, persuade the barons to support him against the invaders by agreeing to sign a Magna Carta-esque document once the crisis is over. All the English come together (yes, including Marion - it is Hollywood, after all) and fight off Phillip's invasion in a climactic battle.
If they'd been trying for a stand-alone movie they'd probably have ended it there. But one more twist: John, upset by the potential loss of his royal power, goes back on his promise and warns the barons they are lucky to keep their lives. Robin Longstride is declared an outlaw and sentenced to death. Robin, however, has already slipped off to Sherwood Forest with Marion and his friends.
What makes this movie stand out is the complexity. John isn't a black-and-white character, nor is Robin. No one in the entire movie can match the virtue of Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. The various story arcs mesh nicely together with the character development to turn in a movie which is about much more than fancy archery and banditry in the woods (though both are present).
I look forward to the next installment in this new franchise.
Saturday I want to see the 2010 version of Robin Hood (Russell Crowe, etc.). This is the fifth version of the Robin Hood legend I've seen as a movie. In order, my favorites (and who played Robin Hood in each) are:
#1 The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) (Errol Flynn)
#2 Robin Hood (2010) (Russell Crowe)
#3 Robin Hood (1973) (Brian Bedford - Voice; Disney Animated)
#4 Robin Hood: Men In Tights (1993) (Cary Elwes)
#5 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) (Kevin Costner)
While the new movie gets 2nd overall, I think Russell Crowe is a dead heat with Errol Flynn for best Robin (Hood/Locksely/Longstride...). They play somewhat different takes on the role, naturally.
Russell Crowe isn't your typical Robin Hood. The movie has chosen to blend portions of the original legend, the "standard" legend as seen in several of the above movies, historical events, and their own brainstorms to create a new story. The result is a satisfying and worthwhile movie which is clearly positioning itself for a sequel.
Robin Longstride (Crowe) is an archer in Richard Lionheart's army, fighting its way home from the crusades. When Richard is killed in a siege, Robin and three of his fellows (including Little John and Will Scarlet) decide there's no point hanging around and split off to make their own way home. Along the way accident causes them in come upon a group of Frenchmen who have ambushed a party led by Sir Robert Loxley, who was bringing Richard's crown back to England. Robin sees an opportunity: take the dead men's equipment and use the crown as their passport back to England. Robin pretends to be Sir Robert, but clearly has no interest in the crown or his assumed title beyond its ability to get him a ship home.
After delivering the crown and seeing Prince John crowned as the new king, Robin, somewhat on a whim, decides to head in the direction of Sherwood, where Sir Robert came from. As he travels he eventually decides to return Sir Robert's sword to his father (the knight's dying wish), and his companions decide this suits them as well as anything else might.
And now The Plot intervenes. The Loxley's (including Sir Robert's wife... err, widow Marion) will loose their lands if Sir Robert's father Sir Walter dies without an heir. Sir Walter thus asks Robin (whose history is known to him) to play the part of Sir Robert for a time.
What is Robin's history? His father wrote what looks suspiciously like an early draft of the Magna Carta. No, I'm not kidding. He got executed for that and related actions (no real shock there). Sir Walter appears to have been one of his followers/comrades.
Marion is at first rather understandably upset, but slowly comes around as Robin takes some actions on behalf of the local peasants (including stealing some grain from the church with the assistance of Friar Tuck).
Meanwhile, King Phillip of France has suborned one of King John's trusted knights, Sir Godfrey. Godfrey persuades John to let him raise money from the barons by force, and then commits atrocities to turn the barons against John, thus weakening England in advance of a french invasion. Naturally they wind up raiding Nottingham and get clobbered in the process by Robin's forces. King John, aided by Sir William Marshal, persuade the barons to support him against the invaders by agreeing to sign a Magna Carta-esque document once the crisis is over. All the English come together (yes, including Marion - it is Hollywood, after all) and fight off Phillip's invasion in a climactic battle.
If they'd been trying for a stand-alone movie they'd probably have ended it there. But one more twist: John, upset by the potential loss of his royal power, goes back on his promise and warns the barons they are lucky to keep their lives. Robin Longstride is declared an outlaw and sentenced to death. Robin, however, has already slipped off to Sherwood Forest with Marion and his friends.
What makes this movie stand out is the complexity. John isn't a black-and-white character, nor is Robin. No one in the entire movie can match the virtue of Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. The various story arcs mesh nicely together with the character development to turn in a movie which is about much more than fancy archery and banditry in the woods (though both are present).
I look forward to the next installment in this new franchise.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
New sidearm
Saturday I bought a slightly used Smith & Wesson Military & Police 40 pistol (full size, 15 round, no external safety). Last night I took it (and various other firearms) to the range to try it out (along with other folks some of whom brought their own ordnance).
I really, really, like the S&W M&P 40. :-)
To start off, I think I got fairly lucky - I found a near-new weapon still with the original box, manual, proof cartridge, extra modular grips, and four magazines for rather less than I'd been prepared to pay for just a used weapon and the standard two magazines.
The S&W M&P 40 has a lot of features I like, which led to my deciding on that particular sidearm. I'm really happy about the reversable magazine catch, which means that I no longer suffer from a penalty for being left handed. The weapon feels good in my hand, and my shot placement, while not as good as the S&W 686, is still much better than I usually do with 9mm, much less large bore cartridges. I also like that field stripping the weapon does NOT require you to pull the trigger, nor does a basic strip require any tools. S&W were quite clever - they managed to include a tool with the weapon. The grips are held on with a rod in the magazine well, which is designed to be removed and used as a tool for field-stripping; nice engineering, which I always appreciate. :-)
I put about 80 rounds through it last night, and it felt quite comfortable throughout. No feed problems (despite new mags, etc.), no failure to fire, no glitches at all. Quite nice, especially since there was at least a minor glitch with every other firearm on the line that night (even, I'm ashamed to admit, my AR-15 - a sticky magazine)!
In related news, I used my new double-barrel shotgun (a replica Colt Model 1878 Coach Gun) to fire two rounds of buckshot simultaneously - that was fun. :-) No one else tried the two-shots-at-once feature, though generally people liked the weapon.
I really, really, like the S&W M&P 40. :-)
To start off, I think I got fairly lucky - I found a near-new weapon still with the original box, manual, proof cartridge, extra modular grips, and four magazines for rather less than I'd been prepared to pay for just a used weapon and the standard two magazines.
The S&W M&P 40 has a lot of features I like, which led to my deciding on that particular sidearm. I'm really happy about the reversable magazine catch, which means that I no longer suffer from a penalty for being left handed. The weapon feels good in my hand, and my shot placement, while not as good as the S&W 686, is still much better than I usually do with 9mm, much less large bore cartridges. I also like that field stripping the weapon does NOT require you to pull the trigger, nor does a basic strip require any tools. S&W were quite clever - they managed to include a tool with the weapon. The grips are held on with a rod in the magazine well, which is designed to be removed and used as a tool for field-stripping; nice engineering, which I always appreciate. :-)
I put about 80 rounds through it last night, and it felt quite comfortable throughout. No feed problems (despite new mags, etc.), no failure to fire, no glitches at all. Quite nice, especially since there was at least a minor glitch with every other firearm on the line that night (even, I'm ashamed to admit, my AR-15 - a sticky magazine)!
In related news, I used my new double-barrel shotgun (a replica Colt Model 1878 Coach Gun) to fire two rounds of buckshot simultaneously - that was fun. :-) No one else tried the two-shots-at-once feature, though generally people liked the weapon.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
How to Train Your Dragon
Spoilers! Spoilers! Spoilers!
OK, first off: see this movie. How to Train Your Dragon (hereafter HTTYD) is smart, funny, has great special effects, a great score, is engaging... it is just plain good and I think it will set the standard that other CGI movies will be judged by for quite some time.
Do I really mean it? In my life I have seen three movies more then once while they were still in theaters: Apollo 13, Serenity, and HTTYD. I saw it first on a normal screen and decided to roll the dice on the new 3D technology. It is a great movie on a normal screen - it is even better in 3D IMAX format.
Aside: whatever they've done with the new 3D method actually works with my messed up eyes, unlike the old red and blue carboard glasses method. I actually could feel depth (the IMAX probably helped), and several times was convinced something on the screen was actually much, much, closer to my seat. I caught myself reaching out to touch the ash falling near the end of the film.
OK, for those who missed the previews HTTYD is centered around Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, a viking teenager who is not very viking-like. This particular group of vikings live on an island with an unusual type of pest: dragons.
And not just one kind of dragon. Zippplebacks, gronkels, terrible terrors, monstrous nightmares... dragons that are different not just in what they look like (two heads can be better than one!), but how they act. There's a personality to each species. This is something that I didn't really think of during the movie, but is actually quite impressive given how little screen time is available to each.
Then there are the vikings. Most are just background characters, but we get five of Hiccup's fellow dragon-fighting trainees as named characters. Most are rather mythos-typical vikings (horned helmets and all), but each has their own little twist. There isn't a whole lot of character development for them, but there is some.
Speaking of character development, both Hiccup and Astrid (the love interest) go through a fair bit, and for quite believable reasons.
Perhaps my favorite part of the movie is the montage of Hiccup figuring out how to fly on Toothless (the dragon he shoots down, somewhat accidentally befriends, and winds up bonding very closely with). I was reminded of the early aviation pioneers, who would let no amount of crashes and failures dissuade them. They just slowly refined their techniques, staying airborne and in control for longer and longer periods.
The soundtrack, also, is brilliant. I have bought two movie soundtracks in my life (not counting individual songs): Henry V and... HTTYD. :-) No, it isn't just because there are war pipes, though that certainly helps. It is a generally upbeat, energizing score, which is exactly what the movie is.
I could continue raving about this movie in a disorganized fashion, but I'm going to end this here: go see it for yourself!
OK, first off: see this movie. How to Train Your Dragon (hereafter HTTYD) is smart, funny, has great special effects, a great score, is engaging... it is just plain good and I think it will set the standard that other CGI movies will be judged by for quite some time.
Do I really mean it? In my life I have seen three movies more then once while they were still in theaters: Apollo 13, Serenity, and HTTYD. I saw it first on a normal screen and decided to roll the dice on the new 3D technology. It is a great movie on a normal screen - it is even better in 3D IMAX format.
Aside: whatever they've done with the new 3D method actually works with my messed up eyes, unlike the old red and blue carboard glasses method. I actually could feel depth (the IMAX probably helped), and several times was convinced something on the screen was actually much, much, closer to my seat. I caught myself reaching out to touch the ash falling near the end of the film.
OK, for those who missed the previews HTTYD is centered around Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, a viking teenager who is not very viking-like. This particular group of vikings live on an island with an unusual type of pest: dragons.
And not just one kind of dragon. Zippplebacks, gronkels, terrible terrors, monstrous nightmares... dragons that are different not just in what they look like (two heads can be better than one!), but how they act. There's a personality to each species. This is something that I didn't really think of during the movie, but is actually quite impressive given how little screen time is available to each.
Then there are the vikings. Most are just background characters, but we get five of Hiccup's fellow dragon-fighting trainees as named characters. Most are rather mythos-typical vikings (horned helmets and all), but each has their own little twist. There isn't a whole lot of character development for them, but there is some.
Speaking of character development, both Hiccup and Astrid (the love interest) go through a fair bit, and for quite believable reasons.
Perhaps my favorite part of the movie is the montage of Hiccup figuring out how to fly on Toothless (the dragon he shoots down, somewhat accidentally befriends, and winds up bonding very closely with). I was reminded of the early aviation pioneers, who would let no amount of crashes and failures dissuade them. They just slowly refined their techniques, staying airborne and in control for longer and longer periods.
The soundtrack, also, is brilliant. I have bought two movie soundtracks in my life (not counting individual songs): Henry V and... HTTYD. :-) No, it isn't just because there are war pipes, though that certainly helps. It is a generally upbeat, energizing score, which is exactly what the movie is.
I could continue raving about this movie in a disorganized fashion, but I'm going to end this here: go see it for yourself!
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
4th of July Part II: The Getty Villa
Well, it has been several weeks since the 4th of July (in fact, it has been exactly a month, but hey), and I'm still a little in awe of the Getty Villa Museum.
Most museums are either fairly drab backdrops to their exhibits or, IMO, eyesores that detract from them due to trying to hard to be 'artistic' themselves. The Getty Villa is neither. For those who don't know, the Villa is almost a recreation of a Roman villa house and surroundings. If the modern display cases were removed and the rather less than artfully concealed modern security and safety equipment hidden it could do an excellent job as a living history structure all by itself - the building is a work of art, one of both high quality and, as far as I can tell, high fidelity to the styles and traditions of Roman art. The collection is rather modest in quantity, but impressive in quality. I found the coin exhibit and discussion particularly noteworthy, though the almost complete lack of arms and armor bothered my slightly given the militancy of Roman culture.
While perhaps only of limited interest to those who aren't into Etruscan/Greco-Roman art and history (the collection is quite narowly focused), it is a treat for those who are, with a cafeteria that is tailored to the subject as well as some excellent and creative exhibits.
One other slightly low note was the giftshop, which was small in both size and in variety - oddly, considering the lavish space available.
All in all, however, the museum is a gem that is more than worthy of the artifacts it presents.
Most museums are either fairly drab backdrops to their exhibits or, IMO, eyesores that detract from them due to trying to hard to be 'artistic' themselves. The Getty Villa is neither. For those who don't know, the Villa is almost a recreation of a Roman villa house and surroundings. If the modern display cases were removed and the rather less than artfully concealed modern security and safety equipment hidden it could do an excellent job as a living history structure all by itself - the building is a work of art, one of both high quality and, as far as I can tell, high fidelity to the styles and traditions of Roman art. The collection is rather modest in quantity, but impressive in quality. I found the coin exhibit and discussion particularly noteworthy, though the almost complete lack of arms and armor bothered my slightly given the militancy of Roman culture.
While perhaps only of limited interest to those who aren't into Etruscan/Greco-Roman art and history (the collection is quite narowly focused), it is a treat for those who are, with a cafeteria that is tailored to the subject as well as some excellent and creative exhibits.
One other slightly low note was the giftshop, which was small in both size and in variety - oddly, considering the lavish space available.
All in all, however, the museum is a gem that is more than worthy of the artifacts it presents.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Script
Harry Potter Movie Review Template:
This is my review of Harry Potter and the [insert rest of name here]. The recurring cast turned in a stellar performance with the limited material they were given to work with. The casting team was also very successful in getting [insert name of non-recurring star here] in their role as [new faculty member of the book here], which they brought off as if they'd been playing the part for years themselves.
Also of note were the special effects, particularly [insert slightly oversized monster here], which looked very life like and yet magical. While impressive, some of the effects, such as [insert magical form of transportation here] seemed rather more distracting than convincing.
Quite why Steve Kloves believes he is a better writer than JK Rowling is uncertain, as the changes from the book to the script have left out information critical to the plot and character development. While I admit [insert name of book here] has its own plot holes, surely the movie would be better served trying to close one or two of them instead of opening new ones?
In particular, I was disappointed by the reduction in Ginny's character, given her importance to the series as a whole. Bonnie Wright seems to be a highly capable actress (doubly so given her age), and I would greatly enjoy seeing her enact her scenes as they were written, or at least somewhat close to the way they were written.
All in all, we are left with a movie whose plot can probably only be fully understood by those who are very familiar with the book, yet sufficiently different that someone familiar with the book will probably still be confused and dissapointed.
Hopefully, the studio will agree with the petition to turn [insert name of next book here] into two movies rather than one, and will sack Mr. Kloves.
Note that Mr. Kloves should be replaced by Mr. Goldenberg for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
This is my review of Harry Potter and the [insert rest of name here]. The recurring cast turned in a stellar performance with the limited material they were given to work with. The casting team was also very successful in getting [insert name of non-recurring star here] in their role as [new faculty member of the book here], which they brought off as if they'd been playing the part for years themselves.
Also of note were the special effects, particularly [insert slightly oversized monster here], which looked very life like and yet magical. While impressive, some of the effects, such as [insert magical form of transportation here] seemed rather more distracting than convincing.
Quite why Steve Kloves believes he is a better writer than JK Rowling is uncertain, as the changes from the book to the script have left out information critical to the plot and character development. While I admit [insert name of book here] has its own plot holes, surely the movie would be better served trying to close one or two of them instead of opening new ones?
In particular, I was disappointed by the reduction in Ginny's character, given her importance to the series as a whole. Bonnie Wright seems to be a highly capable actress (doubly so given her age), and I would greatly enjoy seeing her enact her scenes as they were written, or at least somewhat close to the way they were written.
All in all, we are left with a movie whose plot can probably only be fully understood by those who are very familiar with the book, yet sufficiently different that someone familiar with the book will probably still be confused and dissapointed.
Hopefully, the studio will agree with the petition to turn [insert name of next book here] into two movies rather than one, and will sack Mr. Kloves.
Note that Mr. Kloves should be replaced by Mr. Goldenberg for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
4th of July Part I: Medieval Times
For my 4th of July weekend, I went down to southern California to visit friends and family.
While I was there five of us went to Medieval Times: http://www.medievaltimes.com/
I have to say, they know how to put on a show.
The pre-show showed a delightful sense of humor; at a 'knighting' ceremony a child was knighted, leading the chancellor to remark that it must be summer, because the (k)nights are getting shorter. Our server at dinner gave us "Campbell's Cream of Dragon Soup" and "Fresh Roast Buzzard."
The show itself, however, favored the dramatic. There was a plot, which included a tournament in celebration of a peace treaty. Mostly, however, there was nicely done stunt fighting, including lancework on horseback, swordwork on horseback, melee combat on the ground with a mix of sword, case of sword, axe, mace, flail, and hand-to-hand. Dramatic fog was slightly overused, but overall I was impressed by the quality of the fighting - no swinging from wildly out of range here! Lances were splintered and sparks struck from swords.
One little bit that made quite an impression on me was a falconer. I've always known birds of prey could dive at very high speed, but that's the fastest I've ever seen a big bird go in level flight!
There are six knights, each of which has a section of the audience to cheer for them. We got the Yellow Knight, Don Eduardo del Rey of Navarre. He did manage to defeat one opponent in single combat before getting taken out himself.
A great time was had by all. If you're ever near one of the franchise locations, I highly recommend it. SCA members, please check your detailed period knowledge at the door.
While I was there five of us went to Medieval Times: http://www.medievaltimes.com/
I have to say, they know how to put on a show.
The pre-show showed a delightful sense of humor; at a 'knighting' ceremony a child was knighted, leading the chancellor to remark that it must be summer, because the (k)nights are getting shorter. Our server at dinner gave us "Campbell's Cream of Dragon Soup" and "Fresh Roast Buzzard."
The show itself, however, favored the dramatic. There was a plot, which included a tournament in celebration of a peace treaty. Mostly, however, there was nicely done stunt fighting, including lancework on horseback, swordwork on horseback, melee combat on the ground with a mix of sword, case of sword, axe, mace, flail, and hand-to-hand. Dramatic fog was slightly overused, but overall I was impressed by the quality of the fighting - no swinging from wildly out of range here! Lances were splintered and sparks struck from swords.
One little bit that made quite an impression on me was a falconer. I've always known birds of prey could dive at very high speed, but that's the fastest I've ever seen a big bird go in level flight!
There are six knights, each of which has a section of the audience to cheer for them. We got the Yellow Knight, Don Eduardo del Rey of Navarre. He did manage to defeat one opponent in single combat before getting taken out himself.
A great time was had by all. If you're ever near one of the franchise locations, I highly recommend it. SCA members, please check your detailed period knowledge at the door.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Star Trek
SPOILER ALERT! This post is about the new movie. SPOILERS AHEAD!
OK, knowing this was "due" to be a bad Star Trek movie, I went in with limited expectations. But I did go, because I like the original series.
The bottom line is that, IMO, it was a good movie, which was true to the spirit of the original series and its characters while being somewhat more advanced in visual appearance.
Did it have largish plotholes? Yup. Technical discrepencies and logistical problems you could fly a starship through? Oh yeah! Some violations of 'cannon' (even with the whole 'alternate timeline' thing)? Yes.
Guess what folks, so did the original series.
This is Star Trek! It is NOT a hard-sci-fi show. You KNOW the one redshirt who isn't a major character that goes along with the landing party is going to die. Especially is he's the only one carrying the demolition charges. Kirk is going to be a ladies man, Spock is going to be logical to the point of relieving himself of command (he did that in The Original Series too!), McCoy is "a doctor, not a physicist!" Scotty will be givin' it all he's got, Captain! Uhura will open hailing frequencies and... oh wait, she's got character development!!!
The Enterprise will, by process of elimination if necessary, be the only starship in the sector. Seriously, the rest of that fleet was doomed just by being in the same movie.
So, yes, this was Star Trek. It was pretty good Star Trek, too; well acted, nicely timed, with a nice mix of humor and drama. The high point for me was McCoy; if the new actor didn't look so different I'd swear they rejuvinated Deforest Kelley.
I'm sure a lot of fans will dislike the movie, but I hope that it does well and more are made with this new team.
OK, knowing this was "due" to be a bad Star Trek movie, I went in with limited expectations. But I did go, because I like the original series.
The bottom line is that, IMO, it was a good movie, which was true to the spirit of the original series and its characters while being somewhat more advanced in visual appearance.
Did it have largish plotholes? Yup. Technical discrepencies and logistical problems you could fly a starship through? Oh yeah! Some violations of 'cannon' (even with the whole 'alternate timeline' thing)? Yes.
Guess what folks, so did the original series.
This is Star Trek! It is NOT a hard-sci-fi show. You KNOW the one redshirt who isn't a major character that goes along with the landing party is going to die. Especially is he's the only one carrying the demolition charges. Kirk is going to be a ladies man, Spock is going to be logical to the point of relieving himself of command (he did that in The Original Series too!), McCoy is "a doctor, not a physicist!" Scotty will be givin' it all he's got, Captain! Uhura will open hailing frequencies and... oh wait, she's got character development!!!
The Enterprise will, by process of elimination if necessary, be the only starship in the sector. Seriously, the rest of that fleet was doomed just by being in the same movie.
So, yes, this was Star Trek. It was pretty good Star Trek, too; well acted, nicely timed, with a nice mix of humor and drama. The high point for me was McCoy; if the new actor didn't look so different I'd swear they rejuvinated Deforest Kelley.
I'm sure a lot of fans will dislike the movie, but I hope that it does well and more are made with this new team.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sleepy Weekend
Edit: Daily status: the DJI has dropped 1,476 points since the bailout passed on October 3rd. Your Federal tax dollars at work!
Well, I slept most of the day Friday and Saturday, and I'm still tired today.
In between all that sleeping, my massive energy led me to watch movies and TV on my computer.
The movie "Saints and Soldiers" is a waste of time, IMO. Despite starting out with the claim that it is "based on a true story" as near as I can tell the true story is that WWII happened. Our main characters include a crack rifle shot who spent the pre-war years as a missionary in Germany and a hunter in the American southwest. Despite this he is placed as a line trooper in the 101st Airborne rather than any sort of intel billet or even (based on shown equipment) being his platoon sniper. He also somehow winds up at the Malmedy Massacre (which occurred days before the 101st was in the area), which is portrayed from a very German-apologist viewpoint BTW, and winds up meeting up an old friend who is now a German soldier. Twice. Riiigghht. Other protagonists include an obnoxious Brit photo-recon pilot who... takes extensive notes in code while he's flying. No wonder this guy gets show down. The only redeeming feature of this movie is that at least SOME of the soldiers seem to use bolt-action and semi-auto rifles. This doesn't really make up for the internal GPS units all our protagonists appear to be equipped with (lip service is paid to a map and compass, but it doesn't really hold up), nor the shot of a pair of US soldiers shooting a bazooka at a tree.
Switching over to the positive, ABC's Life on Mars looks like it might be interesting. The show appears to be a police procedural with sci-fi/fantasy elements (the main character is a detective in New York City in 2008 until he gets hit by a car and wakes up in 1973 - still as a police detective). I'm not sure how rooted in reality this show is either (I'm nowhere near an expert on police methods and roles in 1973 New York), but given the possibility that most of the show is a hallucination by the main character, any breaches with reality are easily explainable. I really like the conflict and slowly developing respect between the good cop main character and his bad cop boss. One nit, and it is entirely directed at ABC's on-line full episode viewer: I have no problem watching the show with limited commercial interruption, but can you for the love of all that is holy, clean, and sane in the world not show the exact same commercial in every slot?
Well, I slept most of the day Friday and Saturday, and I'm still tired today.
In between all that sleeping, my massive energy led me to watch movies and TV on my computer.
The movie "Saints and Soldiers" is a waste of time, IMO. Despite starting out with the claim that it is "based on a true story" as near as I can tell the true story is that WWII happened. Our main characters include a crack rifle shot who spent the pre-war years as a missionary in Germany and a hunter in the American southwest. Despite this he is placed as a line trooper in the 101st Airborne rather than any sort of intel billet or even (based on shown equipment) being his platoon sniper. He also somehow winds up at the Malmedy Massacre (which occurred days before the 101st was in the area), which is portrayed from a very German-apologist viewpoint BTW, and winds up meeting up an old friend who is now a German soldier. Twice. Riiigghht. Other protagonists include an obnoxious Brit photo-recon pilot who... takes extensive notes in code while he's flying. No wonder this guy gets show down. The only redeeming feature of this movie is that at least SOME of the soldiers seem to use bolt-action and semi-auto rifles. This doesn't really make up for the internal GPS units all our protagonists appear to be equipped with (lip service is paid to a map and compass, but it doesn't really hold up), nor the shot of a pair of US soldiers shooting a bazooka at a tree.
Switching over to the positive, ABC's Life on Mars looks like it might be interesting. The show appears to be a police procedural with sci-fi/fantasy elements (the main character is a detective in New York City in 2008 until he gets hit by a car and wakes up in 1973 - still as a police detective). I'm not sure how rooted in reality this show is either (I'm nowhere near an expert on police methods and roles in 1973 New York), but given the possibility that most of the show is a hallucination by the main character, any breaches with reality are easily explainable. I really like the conflict and slowly developing respect between the good cop main character and his bad cop boss. One nit, and it is entirely directed at ABC's on-line full episode viewer: I have no problem watching the show with limited commercial interruption, but can you for the love of all that is holy, clean, and sane in the world not show the exact same commercial in every slot?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Gamers: Dorkness Rising
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447166/
The original "The Gamers" was a hilarious romp through the world of fantasy gaming, with humor both clever in concept and brilliant in execution. If you've ever gamed in your life or seen it done, and you haven't seen it yet, SEE IT. ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369445/ )
So when I found out there was going to be a sequel, I ordered it.
While Dorkness Rising is a good movie, it doesn't quite make it to the level of the original. The movie tries to introduce character development and depth; something the first movie lacked, but in my opinion didn't need. Is there excellent humor that makes my laugh three times that same night thinking about it? Yes, but it is more spread out than the original.
There are some great little touches as well - look for Mountain Doom, and a newbie player who finds a little bit of gaming bleeding into their real life.
I'm glad I've got the DVD, but I won't be dragging people in to see it as I sometimes do with The Gamers.
The original "The Gamers" was a hilarious romp through the world of fantasy gaming, with humor both clever in concept and brilliant in execution. If you've ever gamed in your life or seen it done, and you haven't seen it yet, SEE IT. ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369445/ )
So when I found out there was going to be a sequel, I ordered it.
While Dorkness Rising is a good movie, it doesn't quite make it to the level of the original. The movie tries to introduce character development and depth; something the first movie lacked, but in my opinion didn't need. Is there excellent humor that makes my laugh three times that same night thinking about it? Yes, but it is more spread out than the original.
There are some great little touches as well - look for Mountain Doom, and a newbie player who finds a little bit of gaming bleeding into their real life.
I'm glad I've got the DVD, but I won't be dragging people in to see it as I sometimes do with The Gamers.
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Dark Knight
OK, it's had the biggest opening weekend in history, its getting rave reviews left and right, virtually every person that I've seen or heard comment on it has loved it... and all I can say is "10,000 lemmings can't be wrong!"
Spoilers ahoy! If you haven't seen it yet, you read this at your own risk.
I didn't like The Dark Knight. I didn't hate it, I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I didn't like it. Batman Begins had a certain light-hearted feel to it. "It's a black... tank..." Is the dominant line for me of that movie. Not-quite-believable action is OK because its part of the humor that runs throughout the movie. Yes, there was drama, but it seemed to me to take a back seat to the action and the humor alike. How does Batman appear and disappear? Because he's a Ninja! Ninja can do that! Its kitsch, and that makes it a little funy if you think about it.
In The Dark Knight, drama has jumped from third place or lower to first, and the comedy doesn't quite ring right. The moment that defines this movie for me is the Joker walking out of the hospital as explosions go off, and hitting his detonator repeatedly to make the big one go. It seems like it was meant to be funny, and it might have been, but not coming right after the scene with Dent in the hospital and shortly after the death of Rachel. The humor of this movie is twisted - much like the Joker himself. Drama, disturbing concepts (courtesy of the Joker), action, and humor trailing along like a lost puppy wondering where its owner went. Now, I'm a medic at heart even if I'm not licensed in this state. I do dark humor. Death, disfiguration, and violence can be involved in things without necessarily making them not funny. But here it didn't work for me.
I also felt The Dark Knight was a little too long, with one plot twist too many. By about 3/4 of the way through the movie I was thinking "where did the Joker find all these guys/ how did he get all this information/how did he plan that in advance?" every few minutes. Then "Two Face" comes in and makes that look easy. Dent has no Ninja training - how does he manage to find all those people so fast? How does he get out of the hospital? How does he survive the car crash?
To finish on a positive note, I can say nothing bad about the acting. Everyone from the leads to the one-line characters did a great job. The special effects may not always be believeable, but they're quite impressive. All in all while this movie may not deserve to be the super-blockbuster it has turned out to be, there are many, many movies that deserve it less.
Spoilers ahoy! If you haven't seen it yet, you read this at your own risk.
I didn't like The Dark Knight. I didn't hate it, I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I didn't like it. Batman Begins had a certain light-hearted feel to it. "It's a black... tank..." Is the dominant line for me of that movie. Not-quite-believable action is OK because its part of the humor that runs throughout the movie. Yes, there was drama, but it seemed to me to take a back seat to the action and the humor alike. How does Batman appear and disappear? Because he's a Ninja! Ninja can do that! Its kitsch, and that makes it a little funy if you think about it.
In The Dark Knight, drama has jumped from third place or lower to first, and the comedy doesn't quite ring right. The moment that defines this movie for me is the Joker walking out of the hospital as explosions go off, and hitting his detonator repeatedly to make the big one go. It seems like it was meant to be funny, and it might have been, but not coming right after the scene with Dent in the hospital and shortly after the death of Rachel. The humor of this movie is twisted - much like the Joker himself. Drama, disturbing concepts (courtesy of the Joker), action, and humor trailing along like a lost puppy wondering where its owner went. Now, I'm a medic at heart even if I'm not licensed in this state. I do dark humor. Death, disfiguration, and violence can be involved in things without necessarily making them not funny. But here it didn't work for me.
I also felt The Dark Knight was a little too long, with one plot twist too many. By about 3/4 of the way through the movie I was thinking "where did the Joker find all these guys/ how did he get all this information/how did he plan that in advance?" every few minutes. Then "Two Face" comes in and makes that look easy. Dent has no Ninja training - how does he manage to find all those people so fast? How does he get out of the hospital? How does he survive the car crash?
To finish on a positive note, I can say nothing bad about the acting. Everyone from the leads to the one-line characters did a great job. The special effects may not always be believeable, but they're quite impressive. All in all while this movie may not deserve to be the super-blockbuster it has turned out to be, there are many, many movies that deserve it less.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Shaun of the Dead
This movie came highly recommended by several people, so I gave it a try.
Warning: spoilers.
The first three-quarters of the movie a comedy with some mild horror elements. It probably earns its R rating in this section, but as much for "strong language" as blood and gore. I found this portion well scripted, acted, and generally a very clever parody of zombie movies in general. I was especially fond of the various improvised weapons, and meeting up with the mirror-image survivor team.
At about the point where we find out the mother has been bitten, however, the movie suddenly shifts gears from a comedy movie with mild horror elements to a horror movie with mild comedy elements. It was rather jarring, and I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out why they'd done it that way. About the time I got reconciled to it the army showed up with gratuitous automatic weapons fire, and it looked for a moment as if we were going to transition back to comedy. Then mirror-team leader comes in with the "I'm glad... someone... survived." To me this strongly implies that most of her team did not, further elevating the body count and twisting us back to horror. Then we get the aftermath, which looked like it was trying to be comedy again, but there were just too many false notes for me.
If I were seeking a comparison for Shaun, I'd compare it to The Mummy (1999 version with Brendan Fraser). That's a comedy with some moderate horror elements, parodying the monster movie genre. It, too, switches from comedy to horror, but it does so with enough regularity that you get adjusted to the changes easily.
Overall Shaun goes on my list of movies that was worth seeing once, but probably not twice.
Warning: spoilers.
The first three-quarters of the movie a comedy with some mild horror elements. It probably earns its R rating in this section, but as much for "strong language" as blood and gore. I found this portion well scripted, acted, and generally a very clever parody of zombie movies in general. I was especially fond of the various improvised weapons, and meeting up with the mirror-image survivor team.
At about the point where we find out the mother has been bitten, however, the movie suddenly shifts gears from a comedy movie with mild horror elements to a horror movie with mild comedy elements. It was rather jarring, and I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out why they'd done it that way. About the time I got reconciled to it the army showed up with gratuitous automatic weapons fire, and it looked for a moment as if we were going to transition back to comedy. Then mirror-team leader comes in with the "I'm glad... someone... survived." To me this strongly implies that most of her team did not, further elevating the body count and twisting us back to horror. Then we get the aftermath, which looked like it was trying to be comedy again, but there were just too many false notes for me.
If I were seeking a comparison for Shaun, I'd compare it to The Mummy (1999 version with Brendan Fraser). That's a comedy with some moderate horror elements, parodying the monster movie genre. It, too, switches from comedy to horror, but it does so with enough regularity that you get adjusted to the changes easily.
Overall Shaun goes on my list of movies that was worth seeing once, but probably not twice.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Blackhawk Down
Sunday I watched the movie Blackhawk Down for about the 10th time.
I am fully aware that it is a hollywoodized account of events, though from what I've heard and read I think it is much closer to the truth in detail than the major news networks sometimes average, but I'm told by people I trust that it captures the feel of modern urban combat very well indeed, and is very close to the events it portrays in spirit and the big picture.
That was a really long sentance.
Anyway, the movie gets to me. I've seen it enough times by now that I'm able to really follow the individuals through their various scenes, not just absorb the broad picture as I did the first few times through. Each time I see it, something new jumps out at me. This time it was Lt. Col. McKnight being told his people didn't need to go in with the 10th Mountain's relief column. He doesn't even answer, he just goes.
When I watch a movie based on real events, it tends to lead me to look into the real events in more detail. This time I spent several hours surfing wikipedia. I tend to take information on there with a grain of salt, but reading the various estimates of the Somali forces and casaulties really blew my mind. There's an entire order of magnitude of variation between the various estimates. We've got better information for the battle of Agincourt, and that's one of the most disputed battles I know of.
Even the lowball estimates, though, are impressive. At least a thousand militia against 160 US soldiers, but they still took at least 133 dead to the US's 18. Granted, the Rangers, Delta, and 160th SOAR are some of the best troops the US has. But the US troops weren't really trying to kill the enemy; they were just trying to break in and out. And, of course, those are the lowball estimates, and only count the militia. The other flip side is even scarier - over half the US troops were killed or wounded.
It gets to me, every time.
I am fully aware that it is a hollywoodized account of events, though from what I've heard and read I think it is much closer to the truth in detail than the major news networks sometimes average, but I'm told by people I trust that it captures the feel of modern urban combat very well indeed, and is very close to the events it portrays in spirit and the big picture.
That was a really long sentance.
Anyway, the movie gets to me. I've seen it enough times by now that I'm able to really follow the individuals through their various scenes, not just absorb the broad picture as I did the first few times through. Each time I see it, something new jumps out at me. This time it was Lt. Col. McKnight being told his people didn't need to go in with the 10th Mountain's relief column. He doesn't even answer, he just goes.
When I watch a movie based on real events, it tends to lead me to look into the real events in more detail. This time I spent several hours surfing wikipedia. I tend to take information on there with a grain of salt, but reading the various estimates of the Somali forces and casaulties really blew my mind. There's an entire order of magnitude of variation between the various estimates. We've got better information for the battle of Agincourt, and that's one of the most disputed battles I know of.
Even the lowball estimates, though, are impressive. At least a thousand militia against 160 US soldiers, but they still took at least 133 dead to the US's 18. Granted, the Rangers, Delta, and 160th SOAR are some of the best troops the US has. But the US troops weren't really trying to kill the enemy; they were just trying to break in and out. And, of course, those are the lowball estimates, and only count the militia. The other flip side is even scarier - over half the US troops were killed or wounded.
It gets to me, every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
