A couple weeks ago I commented on the number of movies that I'd seen touted by EW as the classics of the last quarter century. Glancing over the lists for the "new classic" TV shows reveal I've watched 42 of the 100, which, while not 75% (like the movies) is still at least a reasonable number of them as well. My music collection includes more than a few of the so-called classic albums since '83. (Okay, only 30 of them, but that's probably more than the average person.)
With the list of best books, however…
I have read three. Out of 100.
And two of them are graphic novels. And one of those I only read because I did a paper in college about how comic books (graphic novels) were not merely "kid stuff" (as their reputation was at the time), and it was one of the examples I cited.
And of the three I've read, there was only one that really floored me, and which I would enthusiastically recommend (Watchmen). And that's being made into a movie, due for release next year, so within another year one could just a well see it on the big screen (although undoubtedly without capturing all its nuance).
I suppose now is an inappropriate time to mention I was an English major (and clearly not much of one). It's certainly only a matter of time until my alma mater finds out and rescinds my degree.
~
Recently I was in Borders, using up a gift card I'd received. Of the books I purchased, I only got one in the fiction category, and it came out 39 years ago. Slaughterhouse-Five.
I'd been meaning to read it, as I have enjoyed other Vonnegut novels, and it was available in a small paperback that wasn't too expensive and which (more important) fits in the back pocket of my slacks, so it's easy to carry and read on the train.
It's not getting me closer to being able to claim to have read anything from the last 25 years, but it may just keep me from losing the ability to claim myself as a college graduate.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Fire worked
A heads-up to my readers who also may be interested in my camera work:
The useless photo site has been updated with pictures of 4th of July festivities, like this one below (click here).
And, yes, the fact that these were posted within two days of being taken is remarkable (for me, at least).
The useless photo site has been updated with pictures of 4th of July festivities, like this one below (click here).
And, yes, the fact that these were posted within two days of being taken is remarkable (for me, at least).
Friday, July 04, 2008
How far they go
Although this holiday weekend seems geared toward making Hancock top at the box office*, I'm still hearing ads for Wanted (probably because when it opened last weekend it was not the most popular movie, despite having Angelina Jolie).
To be clear: Last weekend we visited my father (it was his birthday) and did not see any movie. And if at some point this weekend we find ourselves in a position to see a movie, will we be purchasing tickets for Wanted? Even though the marketing department for Universal is spending money to try to promote it, I think we will not.
In fact, I'd say because of the continuing marketing efforts we probably won't be seeing it.
Prior to last weekend, based on the trailer we'd seen, I was fairly ambivalent about it, and my fiancée thought it looked like a summer popcorn movie (read: bombastic action). Now, while my fiancée soured due to a bad report she got from a co-worker who did see it last weekend, I was not turned until yesterday when I heard a commercial on the radio for Wanted.
Running the trailer in previews before movies or airing on television, with the visual element, the promotional effort can just show dazzling special effects and a glimpse of Jolie's bare (and tattooed) back. However, on the radio the ad must fall back on quoting reviews.
Now, I'm not suggesting I am an expert on advertising, nor am I necessarily all that good at persuasion in general**, but I'd guess that in such ads they'd start with their strongest quote. That way, if listeners change the station before it finishes, at least the best line gets heard. And the first review from which they quoted was this one attributed to Hollywood.com:
"Scene for scene this may be the most visually inventive, trail blazing film of its kind in light years."
In case it didn't jump out at you like it did to me when I heard it (even being said in that enthusiastic voice-over tone), the "light year" is a unit of distance, not a unit of time; that's just a "year." And while I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that it was an attempt at clever use of language, or that in some possible interpretation they were referring to tremendous distance, I'm pretty sure it was more that the writer of the review doesn't know what a light year is.
The thing about that: I'd guess there's a lot of people who don't know that a light year applies to the vast distance traveled by light in a year. Included amongst them, as far as I can tell, are the writer***, any editor of the review, and the people who decided which quote to include first during the ad.
But I do know what a light year is.
Thus, those promoting Wanted sought to (unintentionally) alert listeners if you know what a light year is then it is probably not the movie for you. I can thank them for letting me know before I spend any money on the film. Frankly, that's more than I would have expected.
So if we do get out to the multiplex during the weekend, we'll probably see Wall-E, which my fiancée has thought would be adorable ever since seeing the trailer for it months ago, and which I've heard is actually good. And the marketing for which has not misused "light year" (that I've seen) so it has not turned me off (although, because it appears that Wall-E takes place in outer space, if that same term were used in reference to time rather than distance, it would probably seem a clever play on words rather than an indication of inadequate education).
~
Seeing the text of the Wanted review (rather than merely hearing it), I do take a tiny bit of comfort in seeing "its" properly used ("...film of its kind..."). Someone involved at least knew that much. And that might just get me to sit through it when it comes on cable in a few years.
~
* Linda Richman digression: The box office does not sell boxes, and really is not an office. Discuss.
** Obviously.
*** I suspect the writer is actually a shill for those who seek to promote the film, so it's hardly surprising that it would seem the best quote to those making the radio spot.
To be clear: Last weekend we visited my father (it was his birthday) and did not see any movie. And if at some point this weekend we find ourselves in a position to see a movie, will we be purchasing tickets for Wanted? Even though the marketing department for Universal is spending money to try to promote it, I think we will not.
In fact, I'd say because of the continuing marketing efforts we probably won't be seeing it.
Prior to last weekend, based on the trailer we'd seen, I was fairly ambivalent about it, and my fiancée thought it looked like a summer popcorn movie (read: bombastic action). Now, while my fiancée soured due to a bad report she got from a co-worker who did see it last weekend, I was not turned until yesterday when I heard a commercial on the radio for Wanted.
Running the trailer in previews before movies or airing on television, with the visual element, the promotional effort can just show dazzling special effects and a glimpse of Jolie's bare (and tattooed) back. However, on the radio the ad must fall back on quoting reviews.
Now, I'm not suggesting I am an expert on advertising, nor am I necessarily all that good at persuasion in general**, but I'd guess that in such ads they'd start with their strongest quote. That way, if listeners change the station before it finishes, at least the best line gets heard. And the first review from which they quoted was this one attributed to Hollywood.com:
"Scene for scene this may be the most visually inventive, trail blazing film of its kind in light years."
In case it didn't jump out at you like it did to me when I heard it (even being said in that enthusiastic voice-over tone), the "light year" is a unit of distance, not a unit of time; that's just a "year." And while I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that it was an attempt at clever use of language, or that in some possible interpretation they were referring to tremendous distance, I'm pretty sure it was more that the writer of the review doesn't know what a light year is.
The thing about that: I'd guess there's a lot of people who don't know that a light year applies to the vast distance traveled by light in a year. Included amongst them, as far as I can tell, are the writer***, any editor of the review, and the people who decided which quote to include first during the ad.
But I do know what a light year is.
Thus, those promoting Wanted sought to (unintentionally) alert listeners if you know what a light year is then it is probably not the movie for you. I can thank them for letting me know before I spend any money on the film. Frankly, that's more than I would have expected.
So if we do get out to the multiplex during the weekend, we'll probably see Wall-E, which my fiancée has thought would be adorable ever since seeing the trailer for it months ago, and which I've heard is actually good. And the marketing for which has not misused "light year" (that I've seen) so it has not turned me off (although, because it appears that Wall-E takes place in outer space, if that same term were used in reference to time rather than distance, it would probably seem a clever play on words rather than an indication of inadequate education).
~
Seeing the text of the Wanted review (rather than merely hearing it), I do take a tiny bit of comfort in seeing "its" properly used ("...film of its kind..."). Someone involved at least knew that much. And that might just get me to sit through it when it comes on cable in a few years.
~
* Linda Richman digression: The box office does not sell boxes, and really is not an office. Discuss.
** Obviously.
*** I suspect the writer is actually a shill for those who seek to promote the film, so it's hardly surprising that it would seem the best quote to those making the radio spot.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Generations
If the man recalled correctly what he'd heard, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain was a few years younger than his father. (The man was himself five or six years shy of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama's age. An interesting coincidence, certainly, but nothing more.)
The man imagined the reason his dad likely would vote for McCain in November was not so much due to an age connection, or even a disdain of the younger generation. His dad was a conservative, and thus had to cast his ballot for the Republican candidate; McCain would be the only one of those two who approximated representing his father's political beliefs. (His father would not be voting for a third party; his dad's political beliefs didn't go that way.)
And although McCain was a hollow shell of his former political self, it occurred to the man that if he did get inaugurated the next January, McCain might not represent either the man or his father all that well. However, by the mere fact that McCain could speak in coherent sentences (not necessarily exciting, well-orated sentences, but coherent ones), and because the man and his father both spoke in generally coherent sentences, the Republican nominee would come closer than the bumbling nitwit who took over the desk in the Oval Office seven years previously.
McCain did have that going for him.
And if McCain did end up winning the election in November, the man was pretty sure it would be due to the fears of people, not because McCain energized conservatives.
The man didn't like thinking that. It suggested the worst in people, suggested that the lofty rhetoric of McCain's opponent would inspire only dread in significant percentage of voters; not dread because of the rhetoric but dread because of the way he looked and the spin on facts those who work for McCain (directly or indirectly) would almost certainly spread to inspire dread as the election neared.
However, his father would vote for McCain because that was what a conservative would do. It was not despicable. It had nothing to do with what Obama looked like, nor with any spin by pundits, merely with the side with which Obama had aligned himself.
But the man did not consider his father to be representative.
~
Obama had a better chance of getting his father's vote than Hillary Clinton would have had. That much was certain.
The man imagined the reason his dad likely would vote for McCain in November was not so much due to an age connection, or even a disdain of the younger generation. His dad was a conservative, and thus had to cast his ballot for the Republican candidate; McCain would be the only one of those two who approximated representing his father's political beliefs. (His father would not be voting for a third party; his dad's political beliefs didn't go that way.)
And although McCain was a hollow shell of his former political self, it occurred to the man that if he did get inaugurated the next January, McCain might not represent either the man or his father all that well. However, by the mere fact that McCain could speak in coherent sentences (not necessarily exciting, well-orated sentences, but coherent ones), and because the man and his father both spoke in generally coherent sentences, the Republican nominee would come closer than the bumbling nitwit who took over the desk in the Oval Office seven years previously.
McCain did have that going for him.
And if McCain did end up winning the election in November, the man was pretty sure it would be due to the fears of people, not because McCain energized conservatives.
The man didn't like thinking that. It suggested the worst in people, suggested that the lofty rhetoric of McCain's opponent would inspire only dread in significant percentage of voters; not dread because of the rhetoric but dread because of the way he looked and the spin on facts those who work for McCain (directly or indirectly) would almost certainly spread to inspire dread as the election neared.
However, his father would vote for McCain because that was what a conservative would do. It was not despicable. It had nothing to do with what Obama looked like, nor with any spin by pundits, merely with the side with which Obama had aligned himself.
But the man did not consider his father to be representative.
~
Obama had a better chance of getting his father's vote than Hillary Clinton would have had. That much was certain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)