Build your own.
Link found through via Majikthise.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Another procrastination aid
This is what I would look like if I was a Superhero!
Build your own.
Link found through via Majikthise.
Build your own.
Link found through via Majikthise.
I guess size really does matter to me. Just not the way you'd think.
One of my hobbies is reading science-fiction. At any point in time I'm in the process of finishing up one book with two or three in the queue. For the most part, the books I buy are written by contemporary authors but I've tried to make a point of sampling from some of the more classical works (If you can use the term classical to apply to stories written in the past hundred years or so). So, after twenty years of doing this, I pride myself on having a good layman's knowledge of the field (at least, in the English language - and thank goodness someone translated Jules Verne's works a long time ago. I'd love to read his work in the original French. If it's that good in English... Wow).
There is, however, one aspect of many science-fiction stories that I have a difficult time dealing with and that is the aspect of size. This really only applies to stories that are set across multiple planets, or star systems, or galaxies, or even universes. Space is just so damn big and I don't have a good gut feel for the difference between one light-year and two. At some point, my eyes gloss over and I just think to myself, "Okay. Far. I get the message." Amusingly, this is one area in which many authors feel the need to go into detail. Most of the time, that detail is wasted on me. About the only time I start paying attention is when there is a ship-to-ship engagement where the distance between objects - and their velocity and acceleration relative to each other - actually matters. Otherwise, the only information I really want to know is, "How long does it take to get there." It's probably the Angeleno in me.
On a related note, I have a similar reaction to the size of created artifacts - whether these are spaceships, or space stations, or entire ecosystems. The bigger they get, the less I care. Once it gets into the realm of, "Cannot build on a planet," you've lost me. There's a point at which I just stop trying to connect the dots and figure out where the bridge is related to the engine room spatially. And it usually doesn't matter - at least in terms of storytelling.
Even for spaceships that are small enough to land on a planetary surface I'll often just skim over the dimension data. Especially if the creators of the artifact have made design decisions that break up the spatial layout (whether that's through the use of tubes or transporters or some other method of transport). Once someone got into a tube on the Enterprise they could've been going to BFE for all I cared. Give me a ladder or stairway any day.
This is probably a shame. One of the things I love about Serenity (you saw that one coming, didn't you?) is that I know where everything is located. With a ship that is less than 200 feet long it's not difficult to get all the various areas located spatially. Non-trivial - I was greatly aided by some interior layout drawings that fans had done - but not difficult. And that knowledge really does add to my enjoyment of the show. The characters always act consistent with the environment. There's a reason they move in a certain direction. It's just one of those details that a good world builder takes into account.
It's definitely easier to show things rather than explain them verbally. Maybe I would've appreciated the scope of the Ringworld, from Larry Niven's Known Space series, more if I could've seen it. Somehow, reading that the created world is a circular strip 300 million kilometers in diameter and 1.6 million kilometers wide just causes my eyes to roll back in my head. There's big. And then there's BIG. And then there's FUCKING COLOSSAL. And that's about the extent of my discrimination. Also falling in that category would be the Dyson Sphere-type habitats from the later books of David Brin's Uplift series. It's clear that the author spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to explain what he had created. And I just skim right on through.
The only author who really impressed me with the sheer size of the artifact they envisioned was Arthur C. Clarke in his description of the Rama spacecraft. When the lights go on, early in Rendezvous with Rama, and the inside of the ship is illuminated section-by-section stretching off into the distance, it took my breath away. I got it. The scope was huge. And I was awed. I'm not quite sure what he did different than other authors. It might have been that he built off things I am familiar with and just added them up (the sheer number of staircases the characters had to descend to get from the entry point to the floor; the change in gravity the further away you got from the axis of rotation; the length of time involved to move from one point to another). But all that detail came later. And I appreciated it because he had sold me from that initial description. Whatever he did, he was able to get me to pay attention and start figuring out spatial relationships in an hollow cylindrical object 50 kilometers long and 20 kilometers in diameter. And that's no mean feat. Of course, it also helps that Clarke is a good storyteller and an attentive world builder.
So I'm a tough sell when it comes to absurdly large artifacts. Yes, I understand that space is huge. And I understand that complexity and advancements in technology often result in an increase in size. And that, based on the tremendous energy requirements involved, you might want to move as many people or objects as possible so you'd need a large ship. But I also think there's a certain element of dick-waving going on with authors trying to outdo each other in the, "My spaceship is bigger than your spaceship" contest. And often it actually detracts from my enjoyment of the story. If anything, I find it humerous.
All that is prologue to what I really wanted to write about. Digression from digression followed by digression. Because all I intended to say when I sat down to type was how much I enjoyed reading Howard L. Myers' Econo-War series of stories. Rather than going off on how things only get bigger with time he goes in the other direction. In his future you don't need a spaceship, interplanetary travel is as simple as walking to the store. Through a combination of implants and advances in technology and various objects that can be stowed in pockets or on a belt, humans travel between the stars wearing nothing more than their clothes. They zip along at insane speeds in the ultimate thrill ride breaking atmo feet first as they hurtle down to a planet.
How cool is that?
There is, however, one aspect of many science-fiction stories that I have a difficult time dealing with and that is the aspect of size. This really only applies to stories that are set across multiple planets, or star systems, or galaxies, or even universes. Space is just so damn big and I don't have a good gut feel for the difference between one light-year and two. At some point, my eyes gloss over and I just think to myself, "Okay. Far. I get the message." Amusingly, this is one area in which many authors feel the need to go into detail. Most of the time, that detail is wasted on me. About the only time I start paying attention is when there is a ship-to-ship engagement where the distance between objects - and their velocity and acceleration relative to each other - actually matters. Otherwise, the only information I really want to know is, "How long does it take to get there." It's probably the Angeleno in me.
On a related note, I have a similar reaction to the size of created artifacts - whether these are spaceships, or space stations, or entire ecosystems. The bigger they get, the less I care. Once it gets into the realm of, "Cannot build on a planet," you've lost me. There's a point at which I just stop trying to connect the dots and figure out where the bridge is related to the engine room spatially. And it usually doesn't matter - at least in terms of storytelling.
Even for spaceships that are small enough to land on a planetary surface I'll often just skim over the dimension data. Especially if the creators of the artifact have made design decisions that break up the spatial layout (whether that's through the use of tubes or transporters or some other method of transport). Once someone got into a tube on the Enterprise they could've been going to BFE for all I cared. Give me a ladder or stairway any day.
This is probably a shame. One of the things I love about Serenity (you saw that one coming, didn't you?) is that I know where everything is located. With a ship that is less than 200 feet long it's not difficult to get all the various areas located spatially. Non-trivial - I was greatly aided by some interior layout drawings that fans had done - but not difficult. And that knowledge really does add to my enjoyment of the show. The characters always act consistent with the environment. There's a reason they move in a certain direction. It's just one of those details that a good world builder takes into account.
It's definitely easier to show things rather than explain them verbally. Maybe I would've appreciated the scope of the Ringworld, from Larry Niven's Known Space series, more if I could've seen it. Somehow, reading that the created world is a circular strip 300 million kilometers in diameter and 1.6 million kilometers wide just causes my eyes to roll back in my head. There's big. And then there's BIG. And then there's FUCKING COLOSSAL. And that's about the extent of my discrimination. Also falling in that category would be the Dyson Sphere-type habitats from the later books of David Brin's Uplift series. It's clear that the author spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to explain what he had created. And I just skim right on through.
The only author who really impressed me with the sheer size of the artifact they envisioned was Arthur C. Clarke in his description of the Rama spacecraft. When the lights go on, early in Rendezvous with Rama, and the inside of the ship is illuminated section-by-section stretching off into the distance, it took my breath away. I got it. The scope was huge. And I was awed. I'm not quite sure what he did different than other authors. It might have been that he built off things I am familiar with and just added them up (the sheer number of staircases the characters had to descend to get from the entry point to the floor; the change in gravity the further away you got from the axis of rotation; the length of time involved to move from one point to another). But all that detail came later. And I appreciated it because he had sold me from that initial description. Whatever he did, he was able to get me to pay attention and start figuring out spatial relationships in an hollow cylindrical object 50 kilometers long and 20 kilometers in diameter. And that's no mean feat. Of course, it also helps that Clarke is a good storyteller and an attentive world builder.
So I'm a tough sell when it comes to absurdly large artifacts. Yes, I understand that space is huge. And I understand that complexity and advancements in technology often result in an increase in size. And that, based on the tremendous energy requirements involved, you might want to move as many people or objects as possible so you'd need a large ship. But I also think there's a certain element of dick-waving going on with authors trying to outdo each other in the, "My spaceship is bigger than your spaceship" contest. And often it actually detracts from my enjoyment of the story. If anything, I find it humerous.
All that is prologue to what I really wanted to write about. Digression from digression followed by digression. Because all I intended to say when I sat down to type was how much I enjoyed reading Howard L. Myers' Econo-War series of stories. Rather than going off on how things only get bigger with time he goes in the other direction. In his future you don't need a spaceship, interplanetary travel is as simple as walking to the store. Through a combination of implants and advances in technology and various objects that can be stowed in pockets or on a belt, humans travel between the stars wearing nothing more than their clothes. They zip along at insane speeds in the ultimate thrill ride breaking atmo feet first as they hurtle down to a planet.
How cool is that?
Friday, May 20, 2005
Domestic type things
I'm one of those people who wait until they completely run out of underwear before they start thinking of doing laundry. And it's right around that time. Actually, I'm a bit ahead of the game this week. I could go another couple of days, but I'll be travelling shortly and I wanted to get this out of the way. So today is laundry day. Well, actually, yesterday was supposed to be laundry day but I aborted part way through. Neighbors. What can you do?
We have one coin-operated washer and dryer shared among nine apartments (somewhere between 12 and 15 people). Most of the time this isn't a problem as I've been working from home and can usually find a time when the machines are empty. But we have a couple of neighbors that are very aggressive about inserting themselves into the queue.
I usually do five or six loads in a row and I have a nice routine: set the timer for when the dryer finishes, walk out the back door with a dirty load, walk back in with a clean load, and repeat as necessary. This works great since the washer takes less time to finish a load than the dryer. But that also provides an opening. Sometimes I'll come out and a hamper full of dirty clothes has been set on top of the washer - a signal that one of the neighbors wants to do the next load. Or, even more pushy, is when I'll come out and my wet clothes have been removed from the washer, dumped on top of the dryer, and someone else's washer load is already running. One of our neighbors, in particular, is a master at this technique. I'm pretty sure that she scopes out the situation, sets a timer, and empties the washer the minute it stops spinning. I find it hilarious. Time is money, I guess.
Now I could eliminate any problems by leaving a hamper full of dirty clothes on top of the washer and keep cycling that until I was done. Part of the reason I don't do this is that I've got this weird pessimistic streak where I'm paranoid when I leave something lying around out in the open. Irrational. But there it is. But the other reason is that finishing my laundry is just not that important to me. Whenever I see that one of the neighbors has jumped the washer, I just chuckle to myself and think, "I guess they realllly wanted to get that load done today."
So, long story short, two loads yesterday and four loads today. Same smell.
On a side note, I'm coming to the conclusion that you can learn a lot about someone by how they deal with the dryer lint trap. Selfish people only empty the lint trap before they do a load. All they care about is that the dryer functions well for them. Considerate people empty the lint trap after they finish their load. They want to leave the dryer ready for the next person. (Maybe a Goofus and Gallant opportunity?). I've got to stop being so considerate. Most of the neighbors don't clean the trap after their last load. Maybe I shouldn't either.
'Nuff said on that topic.
Other domestic type things. Rosie is gone for a few days so I'm tackling the living room rug (S. is gone, too. But she's pretty good about not using the rug for relief). So far, Rosie is winning this battle. I'm almost ready to swap for the new rug we have in the garage. I've saturated this thing with chemicals to the point where me and the cats are staggering around the apartment like a bunch of drunks, scrubbed and scrubbed to work the chemicals in, and now I'm waiting until all this stuff dries out. Coming up on forty hours. Still kind of damp.
At least sweeping the floor went without a hitch :-)
We have one coin-operated washer and dryer shared among nine apartments (somewhere between 12 and 15 people). Most of the time this isn't a problem as I've been working from home and can usually find a time when the machines are empty. But we have a couple of neighbors that are very aggressive about inserting themselves into the queue.
I usually do five or six loads in a row and I have a nice routine: set the timer for when the dryer finishes, walk out the back door with a dirty load, walk back in with a clean load, and repeat as necessary. This works great since the washer takes less time to finish a load than the dryer. But that also provides an opening. Sometimes I'll come out and a hamper full of dirty clothes has been set on top of the washer - a signal that one of the neighbors wants to do the next load. Or, even more pushy, is when I'll come out and my wet clothes have been removed from the washer, dumped on top of the dryer, and someone else's washer load is already running. One of our neighbors, in particular, is a master at this technique. I'm pretty sure that she scopes out the situation, sets a timer, and empties the washer the minute it stops spinning. I find it hilarious. Time is money, I guess.
Now I could eliminate any problems by leaving a hamper full of dirty clothes on top of the washer and keep cycling that until I was done. Part of the reason I don't do this is that I've got this weird pessimistic streak where I'm paranoid when I leave something lying around out in the open. Irrational. But there it is. But the other reason is that finishing my laundry is just not that important to me. Whenever I see that one of the neighbors has jumped the washer, I just chuckle to myself and think, "I guess they realllly wanted to get that load done today."
So, long story short, two loads yesterday and four loads today. Same smell.
On a side note, I'm coming to the conclusion that you can learn a lot about someone by how they deal with the dryer lint trap. Selfish people only empty the lint trap before they do a load. All they care about is that the dryer functions well for them. Considerate people empty the lint trap after they finish their load. They want to leave the dryer ready for the next person. (Maybe a Goofus and Gallant opportunity?). I've got to stop being so considerate. Most of the neighbors don't clean the trap after their last load. Maybe I shouldn't either.
'Nuff said on that topic.
Other domestic type things. Rosie is gone for a few days so I'm tackling the living room rug (S. is gone, too. But she's pretty good about not using the rug for relief). So far, Rosie is winning this battle. I'm almost ready to swap for the new rug we have in the garage. I've saturated this thing with chemicals to the point where me and the cats are staggering around the apartment like a bunch of drunks, scrubbed and scrubbed to work the chemicals in, and now I'm waiting until all this stuff dries out. Coming up on forty hours. Still kind of damp.
At least sweeping the floor went without a hitch :-)
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Serenity and the BDHs to once again soar on the small screen
Who'da thunk? One of the commenters over at AICN actually wasn't full of shit. For once.
Okay. Maybe I better explain that one a bit. From earlier today over at the futon critic.
Which is all manner of great news (especially if they air the episodes in the Joss-intended order) and should provide some outstanding press heading into the BDM release. And convert more people.
And it's a possibility that has been rolling around my head for the past 10 days. Back on May 9th, I was surfing through the comments on a Serenity related article over on AICN (Comment reading over there is not recommended, by the way. It's like listening to a rant on talk radio - especially from the people who like to hate on everything. But sometimes I find myself wading through the crap anyways. Hmmm. Maybe I should get that checked?) when the following title caught my eye, "FIREFLY to air in SCI-FI in July. My first thought was, "COOL!". Followed quickly by, "Hmmm. Too good to be true?" Followed even more quickly by, "Damn. I just got suckered by some poster over at AICN. Oh well."
So it's nice to see that the rumor was true. Sorry I doubted you, RenoNevada2000. Whoever you are.
Okay. Maybe I better explain that one a bit. From earlier today over at the futon critic.
FIREFLY (FOX) - The Sci Fi Channel has landed the repeat rights to all 15 hours of the short-lived FOX series (and basis of the upcoming "Serenity" feature film). The network's July schedule lists the series as joining its Friday lineup on July 22 at 7:00/6:00c where it will precede original episodes of "Stargate SG-1," "Stargate Atlantis" and "Battlestar Galactica."
Which is all manner of great news (especially if they air the episodes in the Joss-intended order) and should provide some outstanding press heading into the BDM release. And convert more people.
And it's a possibility that has been rolling around my head for the past 10 days. Back on May 9th, I was surfing through the comments on a Serenity related article over on AICN (Comment reading over there is not recommended, by the way. It's like listening to a rant on talk radio - especially from the people who like to hate on everything. But sometimes I find myself wading through the crap anyways. Hmmm. Maybe I should get that checked?) when the following title caught my eye, "FIREFLY to air in SCI-FI in July. My first thought was, "COOL!". Followed quickly by, "Hmmm. Too good to be true?" Followed even more quickly by, "Damn. I just got suckered by some poster over at AICN. Oh well."
So it's nice to see that the rumor was true. Sorry I doubted you, RenoNevada2000. Whoever you are.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Weird and random
Surfing around this evening, I stumbled upon this page of games and quizzes developed for the online version of The Philosophers' Magazine. As noted previously, I'm a sucker for quizzes so I randomly clicked on one called Taboo.
I won't go into too much detail on the quiz except to say that they present some scenarios and ask if you think the actions are morally wrong, if the actions should be prohibited by law, and a cultural consistency question. The scenarios all involve actions that cause no physical harm to anyone and, since I had decided going in that my definition of immoral would be any action that caused another physical harm, I came out like the worst sort of libertine.
My Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
My Interference Factor is: 0.00.
My Universalising Factor is: -1.
The analysis ended with the following line, "Probably, in your own terms, you were right to adopt a morally permissive view."
All that was so-so but the fun part came when they made demographic comparisons. For my religious preference I had responded, "Christian: Other," so I got to see a comparison between my answers and the answers of other Christians.
One of the scenarios involved a brother and sister having sex (without the possibility of pregnancy). I didn't see the physical harm in the situation so I judged there to be nothing morally wrong with this act. 85% of Christians disagreed with me. Another scenario involved a man using a frozen chicken to get his rocks off. Once again, I saw no harm anywhere in that equation and answered accordingly. 67% of Christians disagreed with me. I figure that most of the people who have a problem with sibling action would also have a problem with poulty loving.
But (to draw a completely inaccurate and unsupported conclusion), 18% of the Christians out there see nothing wrong with getting it on with a frozen carcass and everything wrong with two consenting adults engaging in safe sex. Why am I not surprised?
I won't go into too much detail on the quiz except to say that they present some scenarios and ask if you think the actions are morally wrong, if the actions should be prohibited by law, and a cultural consistency question. The scenarios all involve actions that cause no physical harm to anyone and, since I had decided going in that my definition of immoral would be any action that caused another physical harm, I came out like the worst sort of libertine.
My Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
My Interference Factor is: 0.00.
My Universalising Factor is: -1.
The analysis ended with the following line, "Probably, in your own terms, you were right to adopt a morally permissive view."
All that was so-so but the fun part came when they made demographic comparisons. For my religious preference I had responded, "Christian: Other," so I got to see a comparison between my answers and the answers of other Christians.
One of the scenarios involved a brother and sister having sex (without the possibility of pregnancy). I didn't see the physical harm in the situation so I judged there to be nothing morally wrong with this act. 85% of Christians disagreed with me. Another scenario involved a man using a frozen chicken to get his rocks off. Once again, I saw no harm anywhere in that equation and answered accordingly. 67% of Christians disagreed with me. I figure that most of the people who have a problem with sibling action would also have a problem with poulty loving.
But (to draw a completely inaccurate and unsupported conclusion), 18% of the Christians out there see nothing wrong with getting it on with a frozen carcass and everything wrong with two consenting adults engaging in safe sex. Why am I not surprised?
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The little engine that could (and hopefully will)
Well, it's been a week since S. and I went to see the Serenity pre-screening. I wanted to put some time between myself and the event before I wrote about it, figuring that the added perspective would allow me to be a little less superlative in my description.
No such luck. I'm pretty comfortable classifying the Serenity screening as my best movie going experience ever. Hands down. No contest. My opinion hasn't changed with seven days. Ask me again in a few years.
The main reason why that night was so special has less to do with the movie (although I really liked it) and more to do with the circumstances surrounding the movie.
Serenity should not have been made. Studios just don't green-light major motion pictures based on television shows that didn't even survive one season, written and directed by a man who has never directed a feature motion picture before, and featuring a collection of actors and actresses who are not recognizable stars. It's just not done. And yet, last Thursday S. and I sat in a theater up in San Francisco and watched an almost completed version of that movie. Amazing. And, barring a catastrophe, that movie will be released in the US on September 30th of this year. And I will be seeing it many, many times in the theater.
I won't go into the backstory on why the show failed and how the movie got made. Short summary. Joss Whedon still felt like there was a story to tell. The success of the boxed-set DVD sales helped Universal decide this was a project worth pursuing. All nine of the cast were interested and able to come back and shoot the movie. And what they created is quality.
The pre-screenings were a thank-you from Joss and Universal to the fans. The test screenings have already happened (a number in the Southern California area, one in London, and another in Sydney) and that part of the feedback process is over. The movie is in post-production and there were some technical details and music accompaniment that need to be finished. But Joss put the word out (via the UB and immediately cross-posted around the Firefly web community - I found out about it from Haken over at FFFn.) that there would be ten screenings in ten cities around the country on May 5th. Before Universal could even get their marketing plan in operation, and almost as soon as the ticket portal site came on-line, the shows were sold out (If you go to the ticket portal site you'll notice twenty theaters and a date of May 26th. Welcome to round two of the pre-screenings. Sold out almost as quickly as the first round!).
The pre-screening, at least the San Francisco one, was really more like a big shindig. People lined up for hours playing Firefly audio clips, knitting Jayne hats, walking around and talking, and wearing all manner of Firefly related apparel. Universal had a camera crew there doing interviews for the movie DVD. And all this was before we even got into the theater.
Once we took our seats various people made fandom related announcements. After a few minutes the big surprise was unveiled as Gina Torres and Alan Tudyk entered the theater. We quickly turned that surprise into a standing ovation. One of the coolest things about the whole movie getting made story is the willingness of those involved with the production to tour and interact with the fans. Alan had just come back from a convention in London (where a number of the BDHs were in attendance). Basically they said they came to watch the movie with us and then answer questions afterward. So they sat down, the lights dimmed, and the image came up.
It was a short clip from Joss. Basically, it was a thank-you note. His message was, "Here's all the reasons why this movie shouldn't have been made. Here's the reasons why it was made. One of those reasons is you. Take a break and celebrate. Then get back out there spreading the word and generating buzz to help this movie be successful."
I won't say much about the movie itself, except that I really want to see it again. And again. The BDHs done good. Better than good. Amazing. The characters and the 'verse are consistent with what we came to know and love in the series. The plot is more epic. The dangers more dangerous. The villains more villainous. If the TV series was about the characters scratching out an existence on the edge of space the movie is about them hanging on by a fingernail. The emotions that the movie invoked are stronger. In short, it's Joss writ large. And, even though it's not in the finished state, I think I'll echo S.' sentiments when she said it was a 9 out of 10.
Movie ending. Question and answer session. Filing out. Getting schwag. Driving to the freeway. All kind of a blur. I was still processing the movie. I'm trying to keep the image in my head as long as possible.
And so, for all the above reasons, last Thursday was my Best Movie Experience Ever.
No such luck. I'm pretty comfortable classifying the Serenity screening as my best movie going experience ever. Hands down. No contest. My opinion hasn't changed with seven days. Ask me again in a few years.
The main reason why that night was so special has less to do with the movie (although I really liked it) and more to do with the circumstances surrounding the movie.
Serenity should not have been made. Studios just don't green-light major motion pictures based on television shows that didn't even survive one season, written and directed by a man who has never directed a feature motion picture before, and featuring a collection of actors and actresses who are not recognizable stars. It's just not done. And yet, last Thursday S. and I sat in a theater up in San Francisco and watched an almost completed version of that movie. Amazing. And, barring a catastrophe, that movie will be released in the US on September 30th of this year. And I will be seeing it many, many times in the theater.
I won't go into the backstory on why the show failed and how the movie got made. Short summary. Joss Whedon still felt like there was a story to tell. The success of the boxed-set DVD sales helped Universal decide this was a project worth pursuing. All nine of the cast were interested and able to come back and shoot the movie. And what they created is quality.
The pre-screenings were a thank-you from Joss and Universal to the fans. The test screenings have already happened (a number in the Southern California area, one in London, and another in Sydney) and that part of the feedback process is over. The movie is in post-production and there were some technical details and music accompaniment that need to be finished. But Joss put the word out (via the UB and immediately cross-posted around the Firefly web community - I found out about it from Haken over at FFFn.) that there would be ten screenings in ten cities around the country on May 5th. Before Universal could even get their marketing plan in operation, and almost as soon as the ticket portal site came on-line, the shows were sold out (If you go to the ticket portal site you'll notice twenty theaters and a date of May 26th. Welcome to round two of the pre-screenings. Sold out almost as quickly as the first round!).
The pre-screening, at least the San Francisco one, was really more like a big shindig. People lined up for hours playing Firefly audio clips, knitting Jayne hats, walking around and talking, and wearing all manner of Firefly related apparel. Universal had a camera crew there doing interviews for the movie DVD. And all this was before we even got into the theater.
Once we took our seats various people made fandom related announcements. After a few minutes the big surprise was unveiled as Gina Torres and Alan Tudyk entered the theater. We quickly turned that surprise into a standing ovation. One of the coolest things about the whole movie getting made story is the willingness of those involved with the production to tour and interact with the fans. Alan had just come back from a convention in London (where a number of the BDHs were in attendance). Basically they said they came to watch the movie with us and then answer questions afterward. So they sat down, the lights dimmed, and the image came up.
It was a short clip from Joss. Basically, it was a thank-you note. His message was, "Here's all the reasons why this movie shouldn't have been made. Here's the reasons why it was made. One of those reasons is you. Take a break and celebrate. Then get back out there spreading the word and generating buzz to help this movie be successful."
I won't say much about the movie itself, except that I really want to see it again. And again. The BDHs done good. Better than good. Amazing. The characters and the 'verse are consistent with what we came to know and love in the series. The plot is more epic. The dangers more dangerous. The villains more villainous. If the TV series was about the characters scratching out an existence on the edge of space the movie is about them hanging on by a fingernail. The emotions that the movie invoked are stronger. In short, it's Joss writ large. And, even though it's not in the finished state, I think I'll echo S.' sentiments when she said it was a 9 out of 10.
Movie ending. Question and answer session. Filing out. Getting schwag. Driving to the freeway. All kind of a blur. I was still processing the movie. I'm trying to keep the image in my head as long as possible.
And so, for all the above reasons, last Thursday was my Best Movie Experience Ever.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Just another feline/canine distinction
Rosie (our Yorkie) perks up at every single thing that moves in her field of vision. Tiger and Ocey (our cats) move about the apartment in an air of self-importance. It got me generalizing and I came up with the following difference:
Dogs think that everything you do is their business. Cats think that everything they do is your business.
Dogs think that everything you do is their business. Cats think that everything they do is your business.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
I'm a sucker for these things
Saw a link to this poll over on TalkLeft.
Take the poll.
-9%Republican. | "You're a damn Commie! Where's Tailgunner Joe when we need him?" |
Take the poll.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Probably a good thing our dog doesn't have higher reasoning capabilities
Just took Rosie (our Yorkie puppy) outside on one of my breaks. There's a squeeky ball that has been sitting on the backyard grass for a couple of days and sometimes we'll use the ball to play catch with Rosie (Although she can't get her mouth around the ball. She gets her teeth around one of the small extrusions on the surface and carries it around that way instead. And the whole fetching thing is not quite there yet.).
I threw the ball back and forth for a few minutes and then Jacki (the upstairs neighbor's dog who Rosie adores) came running around the side of the apartment. They sniffed noses. Jacki did some squatting business and then grabbed the ball, took off back around the corner, trotted up the front stairs and disappeared into her apartment. Rosie was left staring at me expectantly.
Sometimes it sucks being the short kid.
I threw the ball back and forth for a few minutes and then Jacki (the upstairs neighbor's dog who Rosie adores) came running around the side of the apartment. They sniffed noses. Jacki did some squatting business and then grabbed the ball, took off back around the corner, trotted up the front stairs and disappeared into her apartment. Rosie was left staring at me expectantly.
Sometimes it sucks being the short kid.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Must not be summer yet
* note to self: Learn to write shorter entries.
We're into the second month of the MLB season and I have yet to get into fan mode. Partly this is due to the absence of Barry Bonds from the Giants line-up. Mostly. But we like to have the game playing on the TV in the background no matter who is starting.
To date, however, we have exhibited a certain amount of lackadaisicalness. Case in point. I surfed over to the ESPN MLB scoreboard today to find out the start time of the Giants-Pirates game. Surprise, surprise. Ninth inning, Giants up 8 to 3, Pirates batting with 2 outs. I was able to watch one walk, one change of pitchers, one single, and the final out. Total time invested: less than 10 minutes (and one commercial break - ugh). (recap)
We're into the second month of the MLB season and I have yet to get into fan mode. Partly this is due to the absence of Barry Bonds from the Giants line-up. Mostly. But we like to have the game playing on the TV in the background no matter who is starting.
To date, however, we have exhibited a certain amount of lackadaisicalness. Case in point. I surfed over to the ESPN MLB scoreboard today to find out the start time of the Giants-Pirates game. Surprise, surprise. Ninth inning, Giants up 8 to 3, Pirates batting with 2 outs. I was able to watch one walk, one change of pitchers, one single, and the final out. Total time invested: less than 10 minutes (and one commercial break - ugh). (recap)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
