I'm helping spread a meme I picked up from Kung Fu Monkey (damn those monkey virii!):
This website has a link to an MP3 of a telephone conversation between stand-up comic Eugene Mirman and a telemarketer for a company that sells itself as the phone company that doesn't support gays or hard-core child pornography (but cleverly begins the telemarketing by claiming just to be an oranization opposed to same-sex marriages).
In addition to being just funny in general , there's also this nice little bit toward the end where the telemarketer says that MCI sponsors hard-core child pornography. I wonder if Karl Rove trained their marketing staff? And I wonder how long it will be before MCI sues that company into the ground.
***
I'll leave the main info in the link (on the Jesus' General page), but I suspect this meme will spread fast and we'll start seeing bandwidth usages maxed out so maybe later I'll look around to see if there are any other hosts.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
"error in judgement" + "appearance of"
Outlining a new story means lots of time sitting around doing nothing, sort of, while trying to figure out what would work best in the third act.
This leads to webcrastination -- which led to checking out Slate --> then Poynter Online's Romenesko column --> and finally to this Wall Street Journal article on TV Experts getting payoffs.
Going into that article you know what's coming -- a whole bunch of weaselly business about "experts" going on TV and pimping products after getting, oh, my yearly teaching assistant salary, from the company whose products they're pimping.
What I was waiting for was the pseudo-apologetic "I made an error in judgement..." combined with some statement to the effect of "...that might give the appearance of..." [bias, undue influence, rampant corruption, moral turpitude -- okay, maybe those last two are me projecting].
Instead, we get an article from a point early in the Scandal-Cycle. This is that period of a scandal-cycle where the people getting fingered claim there's no wrong-doing at all. There's something almost acceptable about getting paid to endorse a product you already believe in -- assuming that these people really do believe in those products, and believe in them more than competing products that didn't pay for an endorsement, and are forthcoming about their financial arrangement....
My guess is that if this scandal has a decent shelf-life we'll finally get to the later stage of the scandal-cycle, which involves those phrases in the title of this post. I've grown so used to hearing those phrases close together that I now just wait to see how they pop out of the scandal-source's mouth.
Which led me to a question: how often are those phrases really used together? Now, it's unscientific but you can get something approaching an answer through the power of Google.
About 630 results (for some combination of those exact phrases). Frankly, far lower than I expected. And some of those hits are false leads, e.g., to potential difficulties in Japanese Sword Polishing.
However, five of the ten links on the first page are links to articles or statements using the phrases in their weasel way. Maybe I would have gotten more hits by using appear as or some other variant as the second phrase.
This leads to webcrastination -- which led to checking out Slate --> then Poynter Online's Romenesko column --> and finally to this Wall Street Journal article on TV Experts getting payoffs.
Going into that article you know what's coming -- a whole bunch of weaselly business about "experts" going on TV and pimping products after getting, oh, my yearly teaching assistant salary, from the company whose products they're pimping.
What I was waiting for was the pseudo-apologetic "I made an error in judgement..." combined with some statement to the effect of "...that might give the appearance of..." [bias, undue influence, rampant corruption, moral turpitude -- okay, maybe those last two are me projecting].
Instead, we get an article from a point early in the Scandal-Cycle. This is that period of a scandal-cycle where the people getting fingered claim there's no wrong-doing at all. There's something almost acceptable about getting paid to endorse a product you already believe in -- assuming that these people really do believe in those products, and believe in them more than competing products that didn't pay for an endorsement, and are forthcoming about their financial arrangement....
My guess is that if this scandal has a decent shelf-life we'll finally get to the later stage of the scandal-cycle, which involves those phrases in the title of this post. I've grown so used to hearing those phrases close together that I now just wait to see how they pop out of the scandal-source's mouth.
Which led me to a question: how often are those phrases really used together? Now, it's unscientific but you can get something approaching an answer through the power of Google.
About 630 results (for some combination of those exact phrases). Frankly, far lower than I expected. And some of those hits are false leads, e.g., to potential difficulties in Japanese Sword Polishing.
However, five of the ten links on the first page are links to articles or statements using the phrases in their weasel way. Maybe I would have gotten more hits by using appear as or some other variant as the second phrase.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Screenwriting Links
I've added some screenwriting links to the right so here's a little rundown:
The Done Deal Message Board is a good thing to read through during the writing your first few screenplays. By looking at the comments there you'll get a solid sense of what rules are pretty important and what rules aren't. Also, when you finally send out some queries if you get a few responses from places you've neither heard of nor can find on the internet, you can post a question and get the lowdown.
John August does a little question and answer thing for IMDB's Ask a Filmmaker feature. He gives even more free advice at his website so check it out.
The Artful Writer has some general screenwriting advice and a bunch of writer's guild related advice on the legal angles.
Finally, John Rogers's Kung Fu Monkey is another screenwriting blog, but this guy also plays Dungeons and Dragons and the like (he even includes a link to the premiere d20 gaming site on the net) so some extra kudoes go that way.
The Done Deal Message Board is a good thing to read through during the writing your first few screenplays. By looking at the comments there you'll get a solid sense of what rules are pretty important and what rules aren't. Also, when you finally send out some queries if you get a few responses from places you've neither heard of nor can find on the internet, you can post a question and get the lowdown.
John August does a little question and answer thing for IMDB's Ask a Filmmaker feature. He gives even more free advice at his website so check it out.
The Artful Writer has some general screenwriting advice and a bunch of writer's guild related advice on the legal angles.
Finally, John Rogers's Kung Fu Monkey is another screenwriting blog, but this guy also plays Dungeons and Dragons and the like (he even includes a link to the premiere d20 gaming site on the net) so some extra kudoes go that way.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Writing is Rewriting
Still no news from the producers, but I think the lawyers are busy...
I've been doing rewrites lately on two scripts. I'll typically work one month taking a screenplay from concept through outline and to first full draft. Subsequent rewrites then take another two months. So, before I even show it to potential purchasers two-thirds of the work was in rewriting.
I imagine for others it might be different. I go through first drafts quickly, just writing past areas that feel clunky knowing that I'll go back and toss it out in a re-write. More exacting people might take longer on first draft but need fewer rewrites.
One of my screenplays is a noirish thing and I wound up having a bunch of back story in it to prop up the plot. That was nagging at me for a while, which is one of the reasons you put things away for a bit -- so that they can nag at you enough that you actually change them. And do change them -- that nagging is your instinct giving you great advice.
In a movie you really can't afford much backstory; there's just not enough space to give it an adequate treatment. That meant I needed to dump almost all the backstory -- and that meant scrapping large, honking chunks of the text. One good thing about that is it cultivates a feeling of detachment -- you've already killed so many pages that killing some more doesn't feel so bad -- and that's good to have when you get around to working with producers and directors.
Given the breadth of the changes I started to wonder whether it would be just as easy to simply write a wholly different screenplay. Certainly my gut instinct is "no" -- but I'd like to have a richer justification than gut instinct.
There's the "not wanting to feel like a quitter" justification. You know, finish what you start; see it through to the end, and so on. But that sounds as tautological as gut instinct.
However, there is something a rewrite retains, even when you throw away every word and start writing again from the beginning. You have a picture of the overall structure -- what worked before and what didn't, what the timing should look like, and so on. Also, a bunch of the characters have been given idenitities that one can hang dialogue and motivations on, or make distinct with a few tweaks.
I think that's why the WGA gives so much priority to the first writer -- note though that there's some debate over whether the WGA gives too much priority to the first writer.
I've been doing rewrites lately on two scripts. I'll typically work one month taking a screenplay from concept through outline and to first full draft. Subsequent rewrites then take another two months. So, before I even show it to potential purchasers two-thirds of the work was in rewriting.
I imagine for others it might be different. I go through first drafts quickly, just writing past areas that feel clunky knowing that I'll go back and toss it out in a re-write. More exacting people might take longer on first draft but need fewer rewrites.
One of my screenplays is a noirish thing and I wound up having a bunch of back story in it to prop up the plot. That was nagging at me for a while, which is one of the reasons you put things away for a bit -- so that they can nag at you enough that you actually change them. And do change them -- that nagging is your instinct giving you great advice.
In a movie you really can't afford much backstory; there's just not enough space to give it an adequate treatment. That meant I needed to dump almost all the backstory -- and that meant scrapping large, honking chunks of the text. One good thing about that is it cultivates a feeling of detachment -- you've already killed so many pages that killing some more doesn't feel so bad -- and that's good to have when you get around to working with producers and directors.
Given the breadth of the changes I started to wonder whether it would be just as easy to simply write a wholly different screenplay. Certainly my gut instinct is "no" -- but I'd like to have a richer justification than gut instinct.
There's the "not wanting to feel like a quitter" justification. You know, finish what you start; see it through to the end, and so on. But that sounds as tautological as gut instinct.
However, there is something a rewrite retains, even when you throw away every word and start writing again from the beginning. You have a picture of the overall structure -- what worked before and what didn't, what the timing should look like, and so on. Also, a bunch of the characters have been given idenitities that one can hang dialogue and motivations on, or make distinct with a few tweaks.
I think that's why the WGA gives so much priority to the first writer -- note though that there's some debate over whether the WGA gives too much priority to the first writer.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Bad Film Week
With Jaru away at sasshin for seven days I'm taking the opportunity to see practically any movie that falls under the action or horror genre, irrespective of their critical or popular acclaim.
So far I've seen Cursed, Boogeyman, and Hostage. I liked Hostage best of the bunch, though there's this weird plot-bump towards the end.
One thing I was really curious about was why Boogeyman did about twice as well as Cursed at the box office. Cursed has everything going for it, better name recognition off the actors, a Wes Craven/Kevin Williamson film, higher budget, and so on. Moreover, if you look at the ratings on IMDB it's even got better popular reviews.
Maybe it's that Cursed came at the tail end of about six weeks of horror releases (next year it'll likely even be worse as the January/February bracket is flooded with horror flicks).
But I also think it has something to do with one lesson I learned losing money self-publishing game books: concept is king. People won't even check your stuff out unless it's got a hook that makes them curious.
I think what happened is that Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson got together and said "let's do a good old fashioned werewolf film" and the audience said: "What? It looks like just another werewolf film." I know that's what slowed me down in seeing it.
My guess is that it'll be even more difficult than the current "impossible-unless-you're-Wes Craven" to sell a werewolf script nowadays.
Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing that we trim back even more on the werewolf films. Personally, I'm fond of werewolves -- they're cool. But the movies always seem to be let-downs.
After seeing Cursed I think part of the reason they're let-downs is that the werewolf always looks so cheesy. Even now with all the high-tech CGI and highly paid graphic artists the werewolf looks like a fuzzy, plump guy wearing a carpet. The morphing bits are often excellent -- but the werewolves just don't cut it. If anyone has some examples of movies with actually cool-looking werewolves in it I'd be pleased to hear them. The only one I can really come up with is Wolfen, but that's not quite a werewolf movie in the same way as the others.
To balance out the bad movies, I also bought some DVDs: Miller's Crossing, Fargo, and The Maltese Falcon. Those films can balance out a lot of bad.
So far I've seen Cursed, Boogeyman, and Hostage. I liked Hostage best of the bunch, though there's this weird plot-bump towards the end.
One thing I was really curious about was why Boogeyman did about twice as well as Cursed at the box office. Cursed has everything going for it, better name recognition off the actors, a Wes Craven/Kevin Williamson film, higher budget, and so on. Moreover, if you look at the ratings on IMDB it's even got better popular reviews.
Maybe it's that Cursed came at the tail end of about six weeks of horror releases (next year it'll likely even be worse as the January/February bracket is flooded with horror flicks).
But I also think it has something to do with one lesson I learned losing money self-publishing game books: concept is king. People won't even check your stuff out unless it's got a hook that makes them curious.
I think what happened is that Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson got together and said "let's do a good old fashioned werewolf film" and the audience said: "What? It looks like just another werewolf film." I know that's what slowed me down in seeing it.
My guess is that it'll be even more difficult than the current "impossible-unless-you're-Wes Craven" to sell a werewolf script nowadays.
Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing that we trim back even more on the werewolf films. Personally, I'm fond of werewolves -- they're cool. But the movies always seem to be let-downs.
After seeing Cursed I think part of the reason they're let-downs is that the werewolf always looks so cheesy. Even now with all the high-tech CGI and highly paid graphic artists the werewolf looks like a fuzzy, plump guy wearing a carpet. The morphing bits are often excellent -- but the werewolves just don't cut it. If anyone has some examples of movies with actually cool-looking werewolves in it I'd be pleased to hear them. The only one I can really come up with is Wolfen, but that's not quite a werewolf movie in the same way as the others.
To balance out the bad movies, I also bought some DVDs: Miller's Crossing, Fargo, and The Maltese Falcon. Those films can balance out a lot of bad.
Monday, March 14, 2005
City of Heroes Update
Sung requested I update the city of Heroes information so that everyone in our group can keep some sort of track of who's online and what they're playing.
City of Heroes: we're on the Liberty Server
Steve's Heroes:
Recursive
Vesuvius
Sung's Heroes:
Fire'Lord
Fire'Storm
Lady'Blaze
Shadow'Spawn
George's Heroes:
Torrancean
RoboX
FureX
Super-boy
John's Heroes:
Captain Jimmy
Bent Space
Jerome's Heroes:
Obsidian Bane
Note: to add any of the heroes above to your CoH friends list, type in the chat window:
/friend hero name
Eg: /friend Fire'Lord
********
I'll also update my World of Warcraft information:
World of Warcraft
Eonar Server:
Steve's Characters [Horde]:
Trespass
Feathermoon Server
Steve's Characters [Alliance]:
Umbranic
Leucauge
Gipper
I mainly play Trespass since the Eonar server is easier to get on and a little less crowded, though its population is getting up there too.
*******
Finally, in the "no news means it's sinking into the Abyss" category I've still heard nothing from any of the producers or director. On the other hand, it is Hollywood and the same incomprehensible forces that can explode a project in 96 hours can rebuild it in something like that time.
In a -- perhaps unrelated -- bit of news, one of the other companies that was interested in making The Sound emailed me on Thursday. They emailed out of the blue last October as well, but, from what I understand, the business is a little gossipy so I figure there's a decent chance they've heard things.
City of Heroes: we're on the Liberty Server
Steve's Heroes:
Recursive
Vesuvius
Sung's Heroes:
Fire'Lord
Fire'Storm
Lady'Blaze
Shadow'Spawn
George's Heroes:
Torrancean
RoboX
FureX
Super-boy
John's Heroes:
Captain Jimmy
Bent Space
Jerome's Heroes:
Obsidian Bane
Note: to add any of the heroes above to your CoH friends list, type in the chat window:
/friend hero name
Eg: /friend Fire'Lord
********
I'll also update my World of Warcraft information:
World of Warcraft
Eonar Server:
Steve's Characters [Horde]:
Trespass
Feathermoon Server
Steve's Characters [Alliance]:
Umbranic
Leucauge
Gipper
I mainly play Trespass since the Eonar server is easier to get on and a little less crowded, though its population is getting up there too.
*******
Finally, in the "no news means it's sinking into the Abyss" category I've still heard nothing from any of the producers or director. On the other hand, it is Hollywood and the same incomprehensible forces that can explode a project in 96 hours can rebuild it in something like that time.
In a -- perhaps unrelated -- bit of news, one of the other companies that was interested in making The Sound emailed me on Thursday. They emailed out of the blue last October as well, but, from what I understand, the business is a little gossipy so I figure there's a decent chance they've heard things.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
The Silence?
In the spirit of full access I thought I'd post something now, when the matters are still up in the air.
Last week the head guys dumped the entire production staff, the people I was originally working with. However, they kept the director and quickly called me to say that the film was still going forward, and that it would actually enter pre-production a little earlier but might be delayed by two weeks for filming.
I suspect this had to do with creative differences within the producing group -- which, frankly, just seems odd -- but it could also be wholly political.
Then, on Friday, I found out (unconfirmed) that the boss wanted to delay filming by another 3 months, so the director quit the project.
When bad things happen everyone stops talking to me. I believe there's some complex legal stuff involved but who knows. Anyway, the quiet is something of a confirmation of the unconfirmed report. However, it's also a sign that they're all probably wrangling over the weekend and perhaps into next week -- when I'll finally receive another call that will either pretend that nothing happened or tell me that the project is in serious delay (since finding a new director would easily add another three months in addition to the existing delays).
I also suspect that a collapse of this magnitude might incur some lawsuits -- which would probably mean that the project is completely done for until the option agreement expires.
Regardless, this is probably good training for how volatile this business can and will be. I'm disappointed of course, but not as bad as I could be because I'm rather pleased with a new script I just finished.
Last week the head guys dumped the entire production staff, the people I was originally working with. However, they kept the director and quickly called me to say that the film was still going forward, and that it would actually enter pre-production a little earlier but might be delayed by two weeks for filming.
I suspect this had to do with creative differences within the producing group -- which, frankly, just seems odd -- but it could also be wholly political.
Then, on Friday, I found out (unconfirmed) that the boss wanted to delay filming by another 3 months, so the director quit the project.
When bad things happen everyone stops talking to me. I believe there's some complex legal stuff involved but who knows. Anyway, the quiet is something of a confirmation of the unconfirmed report. However, it's also a sign that they're all probably wrangling over the weekend and perhaps into next week -- when I'll finally receive another call that will either pretend that nothing happened or tell me that the project is in serious delay (since finding a new director would easily add another three months in addition to the existing delays).
I also suspect that a collapse of this magnitude might incur some lawsuits -- which would probably mean that the project is completely done for until the option agreement expires.
Regardless, this is probably good training for how volatile this business can and will be. I'm disappointed of course, but not as bad as I could be because I'm rather pleased with a new script I just finished.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Constantine
My expectations had been thoroughly trashed for this one, and then some other blogs reviewed it saying essentially that if you had low expectations you won't think it's too bad.
So I'm going in expecting something I'll enjoy as much as, say, Van Helsing, AvP, or maybe Hellboy (2004 was the year of reasonably satisfying but not particularly good action horror films).
Instead I got a film that will probably go in with Resident Evil and Mission: Impossible (1) on enjoyment level -- in other words, I give it a 4 out of 5, will buy the DVD quickly then watch it fairly often.
I'll list out some stuff [SPOILERS BELOW]:
Yeah, I missed the accent but Keanu is always fun to watch, and he managed to capture the dark sarcasm of the character. I think they should have pushed him more towards angry and bitter at the world instead of brooding though.
L.A. works fine in the film; gives it a nice connection with the Chandler novels.
This is one of those movies where they tried to fit too much in -- but this time it doesn't hurt the film so much. The filmmakers drag you kicking and screaming over the bumps and plot holes between the sequences at such a high pace that they aren't too bothersome -- much the same as The Maltese Falcon.
There are a number of very cool scenes. The tiny little fight against the demons on the street in front of the religious icon is terrific -- I don't understand it, but it's memorable.
My spider sense felt the hand of a powerful, but easily confused, member of the production team. You can see signs of this when a sequence plays out as follows: Constantine and sidekick enter building to fight demons -- sidekick runs upstairs to a big water tank, then drops a cross in tank and some vials of water from the River Jordan -- Constantine faces down a gang of demons in a large room, then holds up his cigarette lighter to the sprinkler system -- sprinklers go off and the water melts the skin off the demons ****** then, because the powerful but easily confused member of production team didn't quite figure it out and was worried the audience wouldn't either, we have some demon actually say "HOLY WATER". BTW, that's an iconic example of "on the nose" dialogue, and something typically not present in early drafts, but only after notes come down from on high.
Tilda Swinton was terrific as the androgynous Gabriel. I particularly liked the ending, where she plays a rather unique form of crazy, causing all this suffering in order to make humans worthy of God's love -- she really pulls it off at the end, being like this supportive, sweet-natured aunt who just happens to have a bunch of hoboes buried in the basement. This is a fresh take on an antagonist and I hope she gets some major play in the sequels, if there are any.
Gavin Rossdale pulled some nice scenes as the lesser antagonist, Balthazar. There's not a lot for him to do, but there's one early scene where he chats with Constantine and reveals the sadism and corruption hidden under his power suit and nice manicure. It reminded me of the characters in In the Company of Men, a film so unpleasant I couldn't watch it all the way through, despite being terrifically done.
Peter Stormare pulled off a great vision of Lucifer/Satan. I much prefer this kind of portrayal to the regal sort such as in The Devil's Advocate or Angel Heart. Constantine's Satan owes more to Doestoyevsky's devil in clownish rags -- you might fear him but there won't be any respect in it. Underneath his expensive white suit black slime runs constantly down his feet, leaving a filthy trail everywhere. And the mannerisms, Stormare gets this really right since he comes off not as Darth Vader, the cool force of darkness, but as a pedophiliac uncle -- something sick and scary and just a little pathetic.
For a time the producers were thinking of getting Peter Stormare to play the role of the older guy in The Sound. I'm not sure if that will still work out (timing matters a lot for a small production) -- but I'd be very happy with him in the part.
So I'm going in expecting something I'll enjoy as much as, say, Van Helsing, AvP, or maybe Hellboy (2004 was the year of reasonably satisfying but not particularly good action horror films).
Instead I got a film that will probably go in with Resident Evil and Mission: Impossible (1) on enjoyment level -- in other words, I give it a 4 out of 5, will buy the DVD quickly then watch it fairly often.
I'll list out some stuff [SPOILERS BELOW]:
Yeah, I missed the accent but Keanu is always fun to watch, and he managed to capture the dark sarcasm of the character. I think they should have pushed him more towards angry and bitter at the world instead of brooding though.
L.A. works fine in the film; gives it a nice connection with the Chandler novels.
This is one of those movies where they tried to fit too much in -- but this time it doesn't hurt the film so much. The filmmakers drag you kicking and screaming over the bumps and plot holes between the sequences at such a high pace that they aren't too bothersome -- much the same as The Maltese Falcon.
There are a number of very cool scenes. The tiny little fight against the demons on the street in front of the religious icon is terrific -- I don't understand it, but it's memorable.
My spider sense felt the hand of a powerful, but easily confused, member of the production team. You can see signs of this when a sequence plays out as follows: Constantine and sidekick enter building to fight demons -- sidekick runs upstairs to a big water tank, then drops a cross in tank and some vials of water from the River Jordan -- Constantine faces down a gang of demons in a large room, then holds up his cigarette lighter to the sprinkler system -- sprinklers go off and the water melts the skin off the demons ****** then, because the powerful but easily confused member of production team didn't quite figure it out and was worried the audience wouldn't either, we have some demon actually say "HOLY WATER". BTW, that's an iconic example of "on the nose" dialogue, and something typically not present in early drafts, but only after notes come down from on high.
Tilda Swinton was terrific as the androgynous Gabriel. I particularly liked the ending, where she plays a rather unique form of crazy, causing all this suffering in order to make humans worthy of God's love -- she really pulls it off at the end, being like this supportive, sweet-natured aunt who just happens to have a bunch of hoboes buried in the basement. This is a fresh take on an antagonist and I hope she gets some major play in the sequels, if there are any.
Gavin Rossdale pulled some nice scenes as the lesser antagonist, Balthazar. There's not a lot for him to do, but there's one early scene where he chats with Constantine and reveals the sadism and corruption hidden under his power suit and nice manicure. It reminded me of the characters in In the Company of Men, a film so unpleasant I couldn't watch it all the way through, despite being terrifically done.
Peter Stormare pulled off a great vision of Lucifer/Satan. I much prefer this kind of portrayal to the regal sort such as in The Devil's Advocate or Angel Heart. Constantine's Satan owes more to Doestoyevsky's devil in clownish rags -- you might fear him but there won't be any respect in it. Underneath his expensive white suit black slime runs constantly down his feet, leaving a filthy trail everywhere. And the mannerisms, Stormare gets this really right since he comes off not as Darth Vader, the cool force of darkness, but as a pedophiliac uncle -- something sick and scary and just a little pathetic.
For a time the producers were thinking of getting Peter Stormare to play the role of the older guy in The Sound. I'm not sure if that will still work out (timing matters a lot for a small production) -- but I'd be very happy with him in the part.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Triple Post (3 of 3): Online Games
I've wound up actually playing two online games, City of Heroes and World of Warcraft.
I'd probably let one of them drop but, since I subscribed in large blocks in order to pay a bit less, I'm in this zone where I can still play both of them before making a decision which way to go. And, given that "The Sound" is supposed to start filming before either of those subscriptions run out, I'll possibly not feel the pressing need to save the monthly fee afterwards.
They're both great games. I slightly prefer the game play in World of Warcraft. There's an awful lot to do -- quests pay off well and you can have up to twenty at a time (I often have a stack of 15 or so, many of which are grouped in a similar location), crafting skills have you out scrounging herbs and making potions and trying to get the craft skill up, and the auction house brings Adam Smith's invisible hand to the land of make believe.
City of Heroes has a great hero building system -- complete with a wide variety of costumes. The game play feels a little more repetitive than WoW, but you get little benefits every level. Also, after not too long playing you can pick up some nice and fast movement powers; WoW feels sort of slow getting around after CoH. The chat features are also just a little more convenient. However, if you die you do get experience debt, which can make playing feel a bit more like a grind.
The best thing about City of Heroes, though, is that another of my old friends, Sung, is playing it -- along with his brother, George, and George's wife, Jessica. It's vastly more enjoyable to play these games with friends, particularly when we've all spread out since this way I get to catch up with them a bit. Sung is actively recruiting the members of our old gaming group -- so, Scott, there's just something seriously wrong with a long time Champions player like you not getting online with us.
If you happen to be picking up, or already playing either game, I'll put the server names and character names (in order of who I usually play) I use here:
City of Heroes
Liberty Server
Heroes:
Recursive
Vesuvius
World of Warcraft
Feathermoon Server
Characters:
Umbranic
Leucauge
Gipper
I'd probably let one of them drop but, since I subscribed in large blocks in order to pay a bit less, I'm in this zone where I can still play both of them before making a decision which way to go. And, given that "The Sound" is supposed to start filming before either of those subscriptions run out, I'll possibly not feel the pressing need to save the monthly fee afterwards.
They're both great games. I slightly prefer the game play in World of Warcraft. There's an awful lot to do -- quests pay off well and you can have up to twenty at a time (I often have a stack of 15 or so, many of which are grouped in a similar location), crafting skills have you out scrounging herbs and making potions and trying to get the craft skill up, and the auction house brings Adam Smith's invisible hand to the land of make believe.
City of Heroes has a great hero building system -- complete with a wide variety of costumes. The game play feels a little more repetitive than WoW, but you get little benefits every level. Also, after not too long playing you can pick up some nice and fast movement powers; WoW feels sort of slow getting around after CoH. The chat features are also just a little more convenient. However, if you die you do get experience debt, which can make playing feel a bit more like a grind.
The best thing about City of Heroes, though, is that another of my old friends, Sung, is playing it -- along with his brother, George, and George's wife, Jessica. It's vastly more enjoyable to play these games with friends, particularly when we've all spread out since this way I get to catch up with them a bit. Sung is actively recruiting the members of our old gaming group -- so, Scott, there's just something seriously wrong with a long time Champions player like you not getting online with us.
If you happen to be picking up, or already playing either game, I'll put the server names and character names (in order of who I usually play) I use here:
City of Heroes
Liberty Server
Heroes:
Recursive
Vesuvius
World of Warcraft
Feathermoon Server
Characters:
Umbranic
Leucauge
Gipper
Triple Post (2 of 3): Fair and Balanced
Yeah, yeah, not really, I've only added two links -- but probably as fair and balanced as any of the other media outlets.
I added a link to one of my oldests friends' blogs in the friends section, Scott Eiland. He can go a bit over the top when provoked to anger by lefties -- so my more liberal friends might want to take a valium or smoke some herbal remedy prior to looking at his blog -- but he also includes some terrific bi-partisan comments on the great sport of baseball (the only sport you don't actually ever have to watch in order to thoroughly enjoy, perhaps not watching is even a benefit).
I've also added a link to The Conservative Philosopher. There's no shortage of web sources for conservative thought, but it's nice to see what some academic philosophers have to say (and find out who they are). One worrying trend on that site is the tendency toward posts that make general claims about The Left and other posts that extrapolate general claims about The Left, based on the ravings of a few radicals.
There is no The Left just as there is no The Right -- and they should know this because one of the more interesting posts on their site is a conservative defense of animal rights, what I imagine most people associate with The Left. It'd be nice if there was a little more focusing on specific arguments, or claims, or even individuals, instead of trying to detail the characteristics of abstract categories that only loosely, and poorly, map onto reality.
One question I have, is why do so many of the people, both lefty and righty, reserve their greatest hatred and vitriol for, you know, people who are slightly to the right or left of them, respectively? I suppose Pol Pot and Idi Amin are dead, so there's not much point in despising them any longer -- but surely there are worse people in the world than Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.
I added a link to one of my oldests friends' blogs in the friends section, Scott Eiland. He can go a bit over the top when provoked to anger by lefties -- so my more liberal friends might want to take a valium or smoke some herbal remedy prior to looking at his blog -- but he also includes some terrific bi-partisan comments on the great sport of baseball (the only sport you don't actually ever have to watch in order to thoroughly enjoy, perhaps not watching is even a benefit).
I've also added a link to The Conservative Philosopher. There's no shortage of web sources for conservative thought, but it's nice to see what some academic philosophers have to say (and find out who they are). One worrying trend on that site is the tendency toward posts that make general claims about The Left and other posts that extrapolate general claims about The Left, based on the ravings of a few radicals.
There is no The Left just as there is no The Right -- and they should know this because one of the more interesting posts on their site is a conservative defense of animal rights, what I imagine most people associate with The Left. It'd be nice if there was a little more focusing on specific arguments, or claims, or even individuals, instead of trying to detail the characteristics of abstract categories that only loosely, and poorly, map onto reality.
One question I have, is why do so many of the people, both lefty and righty, reserve their greatest hatred and vitriol for, you know, people who are slightly to the right or left of them, respectively? I suppose Pol Pot and Idi Amin are dead, so there's not much point in despising them any longer -- but surely there are worse people in the world than Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.
Triple Post (1 of 3): The Movie
I was considering writing one long entry but, since this will cover a bunch of unrelated things, I'll break it up into three posts. I figure that'll be easier to read.
Earlier this week one of the producers sent me a list of the nine actors they're considering for various parts and who have expressed interest. I definitely knew a lot more names on the list than I expected for a film with a purportedly $2 million budget, which made we rather curious as to how you can get these people. My guess is they can get relatively known people for two reasons: A) the actual shooting time will be brief, less than a month; so it's not a lot of time out of the actor's schedule. And B) the better known actors might get a chunk of the profits.
Last night the producer emailed me again and said that they had sent offers to two of the people (the actors who'd play the main younger characters). That reduced my nervousness (they're actually spending real money!) but increased my anxiousness, and so I couldn't sleep for a few hours -- which gave me an excuse to play City of Heroes for a while (see above post 3).
Anyway, it's enlightening as to how much one actually can do with a limited budget. Sorry about being so vague about who's on the list. Like W's handlers prior to the debates, I'm working overtime to manage expectations.
Earlier this week one of the producers sent me a list of the nine actors they're considering for various parts and who have expressed interest. I definitely knew a lot more names on the list than I expected for a film with a purportedly $2 million budget, which made we rather curious as to how you can get these people. My guess is they can get relatively known people for two reasons: A) the actual shooting time will be brief, less than a month; so it's not a lot of time out of the actor's schedule. And B) the better known actors might get a chunk of the profits.
Last night the producer emailed me again and said that they had sent offers to two of the people (the actors who'd play the main younger characters). That reduced my nervousness (they're actually spending real money!) but increased my anxiousness, and so I couldn't sleep for a few hours -- which gave me an excuse to play City of Heroes for a while (see above post 3).
Anyway, it's enlightening as to how much one actually can do with a limited budget. Sorry about being so vague about who's on the list. Like W's handlers prior to the debates, I'm working overtime to manage expectations.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Why Does Anyone Live Outside L.A.?
--probably because a three bedroom house costs around 500,000 dollars there (as opposed to approximately 140k here in San Antonio, TX). But it sure does seem worth it.
I went back to LA just after the rains stopped -- so the sky was sharp blue and, as the plane descended past the San Bernardino mountains for landing, one could see a thick cap of snow on the peaks. Of course, in the lowlands the temperature was in the mid-seventies.
Jaru's mother (my mother-in-law) is visiting for a few months. She also visited this summer when we were in Florida so she's now seen California, Texas, and Florida -- and will visit New Jersey in March when Jaru goes back for Sasshin. I sort of think she should visit New Jersey now, so she can gain a proper appreciation for why Jaru and I are doing our best to not live anywhere north of Berkeley.
I didn't get a chance to meet up with the producers or director this trip. Apparently they're busy, which I think translates as "fighting a lot" (the shooting start date might be delayed until April but that's one of the fighting points). The director seems to have some nice connections on the FX front and if they get things moving smoothly they can score a bargain and get some very talented people to do the work.
Last Thursday they were supposed to have a casting meeting, but that got cancelled. I'm looking forward to hearing what actors they might bring on board. It's all low budget stuff so I'm not counting on anyone famous but they might get a good character actor to play the part of the older professor in the film. Note though, that one of the selling points of a horror film is that they don't really need name actors to find an audience, and horror films that have mostly young characters, like this one, have the added advantage that young actors are hungry and cheap.
I went back to LA just after the rains stopped -- so the sky was sharp blue and, as the plane descended past the San Bernardino mountains for landing, one could see a thick cap of snow on the peaks. Of course, in the lowlands the temperature was in the mid-seventies.
Jaru's mother (my mother-in-law) is visiting for a few months. She also visited this summer when we were in Florida so she's now seen California, Texas, and Florida -- and will visit New Jersey in March when Jaru goes back for Sasshin. I sort of think she should visit New Jersey now, so she can gain a proper appreciation for why Jaru and I are doing our best to not live anywhere north of Berkeley.
I didn't get a chance to meet up with the producers or director this trip. Apparently they're busy, which I think translates as "fighting a lot" (the shooting start date might be delayed until April but that's one of the fighting points). The director seems to have some nice connections on the FX front and if they get things moving smoothly they can score a bargain and get some very talented people to do the work.
Last Thursday they were supposed to have a casting meeting, but that got cancelled. I'm looking forward to hearing what actors they might bring on board. It's all low budget stuff so I'm not counting on anyone famous but they might get a good character actor to play the part of the older professor in the film. Note though, that one of the selling points of a horror film is that they don't really need name actors to find an audience, and horror films that have mostly young characters, like this one, have the added advantage that young actors are hungry and cheap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)