Sunday, October 20, 2013
Just learned about Expendables 3 (in filming, apparently)
The new cast for the third film really caught my eye! Also, the conspicuious abscence of Charisma Carpenter, which I will research when time allows.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333784/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were action-packed, ultra-violent, bloody films especially notable for their amazing cast, which stated out with Sylvester Stallone, Jet Li, and a dazzling host of others, and the precious Charisma Carpenter. Brief cameos were contributed by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis.
Expendables 2 brought basically everyone back, plus brought in two big names, Walker, Texas Ranger (Chuck Norris) and martial arts hero Jean-Claude Van Damme. An expanded role was given to Schwarzenegger.
You'll notice that all these "big names" are action stars with a impressive reputation. That is the point. These movies are not anything artful or meaningful. They are impressive, and designed as well oiled cash-engines. They are serving that purpose rather well.
At the time, I complained that they had missed some of the perfect cast members, and Mel Gibson was on that list. Now, he is in this third incarnation, so I have some hope for the others perhaps. They have added Wesley Snipes, which will excite many people. I never thought of Antonio Banderas or Harrison Ford specifically, but they are rather appropriate for the style of the movie and in fact add to the eccentric mix. Kelsey Grammer, on the other hand, I had never imagined in such a movie, except I would imagine he could play an unsympathetic by-the-book aloof lawyer quite well, and perhaps that is his role. Personally, I hope he has a role which stretches the range of his acting skill (I doubt that will happen with the money-fiends sapping the actors' reputations for all they are worth). That would be the only reason (I can see right now)to make this movie worth seeing this in the theater, aside from social reasons.
Two action stars that are shamefully omitted are Samuel L. Jackson and Malcolm McDowell. If either one is brought in for a fourth, or the return of Charisma Carpenter, I will have a new reason to visit the franchise in the theater and pay good money.
Note: I just found this on Kelsey Grammer
http://www.deadline.com/2013/09/kelsey-grammer-joins-beefcake-brigade-in-the-expendables-3/
I may have to look up the YouTube trailer for Transformers: Age of Extinction
And on Banderas:
http://www.latina.com/entertainment/movies/antonio-banderas-joins-expendables-3#axzz2iJWF5ZC4
And one of the best-all-over finds:
http://www.liveforfilms.com/2013/08/30/first-look-at-arnie-harrison-ford-on-the-set-of-the-expendables-3/
Doing my research on Charisma: still unclear: but I get the feeling she is not in the film.
http://www.parade.com/28266/erinhill/0818-charisma-carpenter-the-expendables/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma_Carpenter
http://expendables.wikia.com/wiki/The_Expendables_3
http://www.starpulse.com/Actors/Statham,_Jason/Videos/?vxChannel=&vxClipId=&clip_id=cSffPT9OEtH5k1taOiyjTQ&video_title=The+Expendables+-+Exclusive+Interview+With+Charisma+Carpenter
?!? http://www.latina.com/entertainment/movies/exclusive-charisma-carpenter-says-shell-reprise-her-role-expendables-2#axzz2iJWF5ZC4
Monday, September 16, 2013
self-repair YouTubes are amazing
I am back to trying to fix my laptop. What I learned before fixed one problem, but I actually had two problems.
I know a guy who taught himself trigonometry with YouTube instructional videos, and I also new a guy who did a lot of home repairs via YouTube instructions. I am impressed by people who are that resourceful.
The first problem I had was that the laptop screen was fooled into thinking it was closed and therefore dimmed the light to save power, becoming impractical to work on. The direct cause was that a little knob was gummed up and always pressed down into shut-off mode. i had to work it loose, and have to every week or so when the problem reappears.
My new problem is not darkening, or dimming, or blinking per se, but rather a color static of a sort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsi6DGkrIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzPe8nhkNag
I am going to try the advice in video #2. Just like he said in the video, I have been told about the inverter, but don't think that is the problem.
I know a guy who taught himself trigonometry with YouTube instructional videos, and I also new a guy who did a lot of home repairs via YouTube instructions. I am impressed by people who are that resourceful.
The first problem I had was that the laptop screen was fooled into thinking it was closed and therefore dimmed the light to save power, becoming impractical to work on. The direct cause was that a little knob was gummed up and always pressed down into shut-off mode. i had to work it loose, and have to every week or so when the problem reappears.
My new problem is not darkening, or dimming, or blinking per se, but rather a color static of a sort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsi6DGkrIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzPe8nhkNag
I am going to try the advice in video #2. Just like he said in the video, I have been told about the inverter, but don't think that is the problem.
Monday, August 19, 2013
De Camp writes about intelligence among races
As stated in my previous blog post, I have been reading "Ancient Ruins and Archeology" by L. Sprague de Camp, published in 1963. Much of the information is outdated, although the many observations about the way science and archeology and speculation are handled, as well as the comments on human nature at large, and admirable. The prose is coherant and readable. The descriptions evokative. The insights into archeology of the time period (the 60s) is very much worth reading. And history is a discipline that doesn't change too much. It does, and should, but his writings are undoubtably relevant to today.
I want to share a few passages with you. I hope using his quotations is in good form.
In his chapter on the ruins of Zimbabwe and the many ideas around its builders, he says:
All prejudices aside, what do we know about the intelligence of the different races of man? Not much. That is why peopole get so heated about the subject; the less they know, the more pugnacious they are.
Intelligence is a vague term meaning mental power, just as "strength" means physical power. We can often say that one man is more intelligent than another, just as we can often say that one man is stronger than another. But it is hard to measure these qualities exactly. You cannot measure a man's over-all "strength" on any one standard scale. You can measure his seperate physical powers, such as his ability to run, jump, or lift weights. A man who is good at one of these may be poor at another. So "strength" is not one ability but many, which can be combined in any of an infinite number of ways.
The same with intelligence. One man may be a precise accountant, another a shrewd lawyer, and a third a creative artist. But there is no way to compare John's success as a chess player with William's success as a politician to tell which is the more intelligent.
Intelligence tests measure single mental powers, such as the ability to handle words and numbers and to solve simple puzzles. Such tests are useful when given to people of the same cultural group. But these tests do not work with people of strikingly different backgrounds. We cannot expect a tribesman, however gifted, who has never seen a pencil or paper to score well on a written test. On the other hand, a child from a hunting tribe can beat civilized children all hollow in a test that calls for knowledge of animal footprints.
Language, work habits, aims in life, manners, diet, tradition, and experience all affect the way one thinks. And, when we try to test people of different races, we cannot eliminate all these factors. No test has been found that ignores the effects of environment and measures only a man's inherent mental qualities.
Some people, wishing to prove the Caucasiod race superior to the Negroid, point out the backwardness of African Negroes before the coming of the whites. As we have seen, this cultural backwardness can be explained on grounds other than intelligence. The Sahara Desert isolated the small, thinly spread Negroid population from the currents of Old World culture, just as the oceans isolated the Pacific Islanders. Having no contact with European ideas and techniques during the many centuries when European civilization was arising, the Africans could not be expected to develope in a European manner.
Some people, on the other hand, assert that all races are exactly equal in intelligence. Although this idea is canonical Marxist dogma and a handy political slogan, it has no scientific basis either.
Few have ever argued that Negroids are inherently more intelligent than Caucasoids. But this concept is just as reasonable as the other two. In fact, one can make a good a priori argument why this might be so: All species are subject to the force of heredity called degenerative mutation pressure. Hence every species tends to deteriorate -- that is, to lose organs and abilities. In a wild state, however, selection naturally eliminates these defectives as they appear.
In civilization, however, people with defects, provided the flaws are not too severe, can live and breed along with the rest. Therefore, civilized races tend to degenerate. Thus the peoples who have been civilized the longest, such as the Near Easterners, the Chinese, and the Europeans, have probably degenerated the most; while those who live the most primitive lives, like Pygmies and Papuans, may prove the soundest of mind and body.
This, too, is mere speculation. If anybody ever devises a test that measures inherent mental powers regardless of culture and environment, it might well uncover mental differences among the races. It is anybody's guess as to which race would score best on which test. Perhaps different races would excel in different mental abilities. From such inconclusive evidence as does exist, our own guess, for whatever it may be worth, is that, while racial differences in intelligence may indeed exist, differences among individuals within any one race are much greater than average differences among races. And, given the right circumstances, men of any living race could have built Zimbabwe.
I want to share a few passages with you. I hope using his quotations is in good form.
In his chapter on the ruins of Zimbabwe and the many ideas around its builders, he says:
All prejudices aside, what do we know about the intelligence of the different races of man? Not much. That is why peopole get so heated about the subject; the less they know, the more pugnacious they are.
Intelligence is a vague term meaning mental power, just as "strength" means physical power. We can often say that one man is more intelligent than another, just as we can often say that one man is stronger than another. But it is hard to measure these qualities exactly. You cannot measure a man's over-all "strength" on any one standard scale. You can measure his seperate physical powers, such as his ability to run, jump, or lift weights. A man who is good at one of these may be poor at another. So "strength" is not one ability but many, which can be combined in any of an infinite number of ways.
The same with intelligence. One man may be a precise accountant, another a shrewd lawyer, and a third a creative artist. But there is no way to compare John's success as a chess player with William's success as a politician to tell which is the more intelligent.
Intelligence tests measure single mental powers, such as the ability to handle words and numbers and to solve simple puzzles. Such tests are useful when given to people of the same cultural group. But these tests do not work with people of strikingly different backgrounds. We cannot expect a tribesman, however gifted, who has never seen a pencil or paper to score well on a written test. On the other hand, a child from a hunting tribe can beat civilized children all hollow in a test that calls for knowledge of animal footprints.
Language, work habits, aims in life, manners, diet, tradition, and experience all affect the way one thinks. And, when we try to test people of different races, we cannot eliminate all these factors. No test has been found that ignores the effects of environment and measures only a man's inherent mental qualities.
Some people, wishing to prove the Caucasiod race superior to the Negroid, point out the backwardness of African Negroes before the coming of the whites. As we have seen, this cultural backwardness can be explained on grounds other than intelligence. The Sahara Desert isolated the small, thinly spread Negroid population from the currents of Old World culture, just as the oceans isolated the Pacific Islanders. Having no contact with European ideas and techniques during the many centuries when European civilization was arising, the Africans could not be expected to develope in a European manner.
Some people, on the other hand, assert that all races are exactly equal in intelligence. Although this idea is canonical Marxist dogma and a handy political slogan, it has no scientific basis either.
Few have ever argued that Negroids are inherently more intelligent than Caucasoids. But this concept is just as reasonable as the other two. In fact, one can make a good a priori argument why this might be so: All species are subject to the force of heredity called degenerative mutation pressure. Hence every species tends to deteriorate -- that is, to lose organs and abilities. In a wild state, however, selection naturally eliminates these defectives as they appear.
In civilization, however, people with defects, provided the flaws are not too severe, can live and breed along with the rest. Therefore, civilized races tend to degenerate. Thus the peoples who have been civilized the longest, such as the Near Easterners, the Chinese, and the Europeans, have probably degenerated the most; while those who live the most primitive lives, like Pygmies and Papuans, may prove the soundest of mind and body.
This, too, is mere speculation. If anybody ever devises a test that measures inherent mental powers regardless of culture and environment, it might well uncover mental differences among the races. It is anybody's guess as to which race would score best on which test. Perhaps different races would excel in different mental abilities. From such inconclusive evidence as does exist, our own guess, for whatever it may be worth, is that, while racial differences in intelligence may indeed exist, differences among individuals within any one race are much greater than average differences among races. And, given the right circumstances, men of any living race could have built Zimbabwe.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
what have you read by L. Sprague de Camp?
Funny name, amazing results. He's a writer of fiction (often sci-fi or historical) and non-fiction (usually of the scientific bent, sometimes on the romantic side of science matters).
I have been reading a non-fiction book by him recently on archeological puzzles. I've heard his name for a long time in sci-fi lit circles, but only knew of him particularly as the author of Dragon of the Ishtar Gate, a story somewhat along the lines of Conan the Barbarian, but of a historical not fantasy aspect.
I have been suprised at the sobriety of his "mysteries" books. Most similar non-fiction has a reputation for repeating ill-founded stories of the paranormal. More often than not, de Camp is debunking popular misconceptions and improbable legends.
I started with a collection of short stories about dragons. True to form, his story's dragon was more like a land-crocodile of a fictional mideval land. A cockadrill, as I recall.
I heard he had written a book or two on the Atlantis theme, 'Lost Continents' I beleive but I wasn't interested enough to look it up. That might have been a mistake in light of my improving opinion of him as an author who steers away from needless sensationalism.
They I got a book from the library titled 'Lands Beyond' (published 1952) merely because I admire his co-author, Willy Ley. Although it's only a surmise, Ley didn't seem to have written much of the book, and rightly so de Camp is given the main author credit.
'Lands Beyond' was suprisingly scholarly, and debunked a few of the mainstays of mystery-archeology, such as the origin of knowledge of Mu. Much of the book was a discussion of 'Odessey' and the 'Voyages of Sindbad' and what they tell us of the culture they came from. It also has a well-written chapter of the follies of the search for El Dorado in the South American jungles.
The book I am in currently is titled 'Ancient Ruins and Archeology' (published 1964). I had not heard of the ruins of Ma'rib, nor of Nan Matol. I had never heard Angkor Wat properly described. His description of the ruins of Zimbabwe were also a highlight. The photographs reproduced in this book (some his own, others not) make the book extra interesting. I did not know Zimbabwe had conical towers such as related.
His sober commentary on intelligence among the races, and of the politically-correct coatng of history, and the silliess of so many pseudo-scientists/occultists was a joy to hear.
One of my few critisicms of the books, besides their outdated information (through no fault of their own), is that they take a few certain legendary matters for granted that deserve a mention (at least) of skepticism. Especially the Africa-rounding voyage of Egyptian Pharoah Niku II. Also, they tend to assume an inter-connectedness of contemporary thinkers in history that just isn't realistic at all. The authors both assume that such-and-such writer writes this fact, and so such-and-such later writer built off that information. That's too convenient a idea for the workings of real life.
I have been reading a non-fiction book by him recently on archeological puzzles. I've heard his name for a long time in sci-fi lit circles, but only knew of him particularly as the author of Dragon of the Ishtar Gate, a story somewhat along the lines of Conan the Barbarian, but of a historical not fantasy aspect.
I have been suprised at the sobriety of his "mysteries" books. Most similar non-fiction has a reputation for repeating ill-founded stories of the paranormal. More often than not, de Camp is debunking popular misconceptions and improbable legends.
I started with a collection of short stories about dragons. True to form, his story's dragon was more like a land-crocodile of a fictional mideval land. A cockadrill, as I recall.
I heard he had written a book or two on the Atlantis theme, 'Lost Continents' I beleive but I wasn't interested enough to look it up. That might have been a mistake in light of my improving opinion of him as an author who steers away from needless sensationalism.
They I got a book from the library titled 'Lands Beyond' (published 1952) merely because I admire his co-author, Willy Ley. Although it's only a surmise, Ley didn't seem to have written much of the book, and rightly so de Camp is given the main author credit.
'Lands Beyond' was suprisingly scholarly, and debunked a few of the mainstays of mystery-archeology, such as the origin of knowledge of Mu. Much of the book was a discussion of 'Odessey' and the 'Voyages of Sindbad' and what they tell us of the culture they came from. It also has a well-written chapter of the follies of the search for El Dorado in the South American jungles.
The book I am in currently is titled 'Ancient Ruins and Archeology' (published 1964). I had not heard of the ruins of Ma'rib, nor of Nan Matol. I had never heard Angkor Wat properly described. His description of the ruins of Zimbabwe were also a highlight. The photographs reproduced in this book (some his own, others not) make the book extra interesting. I did not know Zimbabwe had conical towers such as related.
His sober commentary on intelligence among the races, and of the politically-correct coatng of history, and the silliess of so many pseudo-scientists/occultists was a joy to hear.
One of my few critisicms of the books, besides their outdated information (through no fault of their own), is that they take a few certain legendary matters for granted that deserve a mention (at least) of skepticism. Especially the Africa-rounding voyage of Egyptian Pharoah Niku II. Also, they tend to assume an inter-connectedness of contemporary thinkers in history that just isn't realistic at all. The authors both assume that such-and-such writer writes this fact, and so such-and-such later writer built off that information. That's too convenient a idea for the workings of real life.
have you read any movie novelizations? on ST: 8
Usually, I avoid any novelizations I come across, although I may need to revise the particular prejudice.
Recently, I have re-discovered the audio book version of the novelization of the movie Star Trek: Insurrection, written by J.M. Dillard. I would be interested to know the author's contact with the actual script, which it follows quite closely in most respects.
I have been suprised. Although it cannot compete with the movie in visual effects and explosions, I think it's actually better, in my own opinion, than the movie.
It explains things better. Mostly, I think this is matter of the book having fewer content constraints, especially as concerns "running time." I think the script for Insurrection was chopped up at the expernse of backstory and plot due to time constraints. On another level, the medium of film is not conducive to the inner workings of characters' minds. To see thought-processes, motivations, and unedited reactions is priceless to the storyteller.
This makes me think I might should look up the novelizations of ofter unprepossessing movies, Star Trek and otherwise.
There are a few ways that the book is much weaker than the movie experience of Insurrection. The villian played by J. J. Abrams, and the scenes where Picard and Date sing to HMS Pintafore. Neither of these can be replaced anoything other than the movie, and represent other memorable aspects of the movie experience that are generally known the strengths of a movie over a novel.
One huge weakness of the movie is the motivation and inner turmoil of Admiral Dougharty was never seen in the film, and barely even hinted at. Hinted at even so, but not to the extent of the novel, with his revulsion over the assignment and unedited (negative) appraisel of the Son'a.
The novelization also got inside the head of characters of both new races, the Ba'ku abd Son'a. Seeing affairs from their point of view was invaluable is clearly understanding the races. They also hinted at the Ba'ku "Time of Troubles" civil war that lead to the Son'a exile, also at the advanced medical decay of the Son'a (and especially their green fungal skin condition, which was seen onscreen but never explained.)
The film skipped over many parts of the Son'a race introduction. Especially the description from the start of Son'a culture as being one of theives, interested in "Wine, women, and song" a people who value fashion and luxury and even consider "abject hedonism to be a virtue." Later on, we get the idea, but only after we've been trying to figure these guys out for an hour.
One thing that really stood out to me as perhaps changed for the movie was the statements that the Son'a had such a fear of death that is manifested as a paranoia of personal injury taken to the extreme. I imagine to movie goers it would be translated as cowardice, when in fact it is much more complicated. This seems to have been dropped from the actual film, with the villian bodily attacking people at times. I can se elements of that theme still present: the use of drones rather than personnel, and the villian hesitating to fire his weapon in case it set off a explosion. Still, as an original viewer, that motivation was entirely unseen ad even unsuspected.
I just want to say: it is very un-Star-Trek-like for the Enterprise crew to abandon R'uafo to the explosion of his monstrosity. They also seemed very unconcerned for the welfare of the other Son'a they stunned or otherwise encouteded.
Recently, I have re-discovered the audio book version of the novelization of the movie Star Trek: Insurrection, written by J.M. Dillard. I would be interested to know the author's contact with the actual script, which it follows quite closely in most respects.
I have been suprised. Although it cannot compete with the movie in visual effects and explosions, I think it's actually better, in my own opinion, than the movie.
It explains things better. Mostly, I think this is matter of the book having fewer content constraints, especially as concerns "running time." I think the script for Insurrection was chopped up at the expernse of backstory and plot due to time constraints. On another level, the medium of film is not conducive to the inner workings of characters' minds. To see thought-processes, motivations, and unedited reactions is priceless to the storyteller.
This makes me think I might should look up the novelizations of ofter unprepossessing movies, Star Trek and otherwise.
There are a few ways that the book is much weaker than the movie experience of Insurrection. The villian played by J. J. Abrams, and the scenes where Picard and Date sing to HMS Pintafore. Neither of these can be replaced anoything other than the movie, and represent other memorable aspects of the movie experience that are generally known the strengths of a movie over a novel.
One huge weakness of the movie is the motivation and inner turmoil of Admiral Dougharty was never seen in the film, and barely even hinted at. Hinted at even so, but not to the extent of the novel, with his revulsion over the assignment and unedited (negative) appraisel of the Son'a.
The novelization also got inside the head of characters of both new races, the Ba'ku abd Son'a. Seeing affairs from their point of view was invaluable is clearly understanding the races. They also hinted at the Ba'ku "Time of Troubles" civil war that lead to the Son'a exile, also at the advanced medical decay of the Son'a (and especially their green fungal skin condition, which was seen onscreen but never explained.)
The film skipped over many parts of the Son'a race introduction. Especially the description from the start of Son'a culture as being one of theives, interested in "Wine, women, and song" a people who value fashion and luxury and even consider "abject hedonism to be a virtue." Later on, we get the idea, but only after we've been trying to figure these guys out for an hour.
One thing that really stood out to me as perhaps changed for the movie was the statements that the Son'a had such a fear of death that is manifested as a paranoia of personal injury taken to the extreme. I imagine to movie goers it would be translated as cowardice, when in fact it is much more complicated. This seems to have been dropped from the actual film, with the villian bodily attacking people at times. I can se elements of that theme still present: the use of drones rather than personnel, and the villian hesitating to fire his weapon in case it set off a explosion. Still, as an original viewer, that motivation was entirely unseen ad even unsuspected.
I just want to say: it is very un-Star-Trek-like for the Enterprise crew to abandon R'uafo to the explosion of his monstrosity. They also seemed very unconcerned for the welfare of the other Son'a they stunned or otherwise encouteded.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Star Trek: Into Darkness movie review
Actually, if I was blogging chronologically, I really ought to blog my review of Pacific Rim or Monster University first, but I wanted to get this one out-of-the-way ASAP so I can watch and/or read other reviews with my own unadulterated thoughts put down already. Once seen, such things cannot be unseen. That's your deep thought for moment. I really can't wait to see what Mr. Plinkett says about Star Trek 2. His movie reviews are outstanding, although I do not know if Plinkett is one man, many, a fictional person, a pseudonym(s), or what.
Anyway, NON SPOILER SECTION
I enjoyed all three movies, although my order of the three I mention would be: Pacific Rim, Monster University, Star Trek
I haven't been to many movies this year, or any year lately. All by itself, the fact I made the effort to see it in the theater was a compliment. I did not go to see the previous Star Trek, and it took me awhile (and a change in my thinking) to finally watch it.
The newest Star Trek movies basically got the Lost in Space movie treatment. Or Starsky and Hutch. Or the Beverly Hillbillies. They are not sequels to the original, or even remakes strictly speaking, but nostolgia-driven pop-culture-appealing gimmick-prone inspired-by entertainment-experiences.
To say that a movie with Kirk-Spock-McCoy and phasers and Klingons is good ol' Star Trek again is like saying my original Nintendo Star Trek 30th Anniversary game was right on par with the series in entertainment-genetics. Hey, the game was fun, with Harry Mudd, Saurian brandy, and Romulan birds-of-prey shooting at you (or threatening to). True to the classic series, I even learned to take along a few redshirts whenever bad guys were around.
SPOILER ALERT - SPOILER-FILLED SECTION - DO NOT ENTER WITHOUT CONSENT
I enjoyed the movie, but on terms of a fun sci-fi movie. It certainly was not bad. And I have seen some bad sci-fi movies, recently and in the past, so I am grateful for that.
So, in no partcular order, my gripes.
Khan crying, Spock crying, Kirk crying
Khan's defeat was not because of his 20th Century 2-Dimensional thinking, but rather a rather silly mistake (owing to a underestimation of Spock).
Khan was not Indian (tan-skinned), but this is understandable in light of tan-skinned terrorists in movies being a delicate proposition
Scotty not being replaced with an experienced Starfleet engineer (while docked at Earth for goodness sake! This was the most stupid part of the whole movie, except maybe the crying)
My compliments:
Carol Marcus showing up for perhaps more than one movie.
The idea that Khan and Carol Marcus are in this universe suggest boundless gimmick possibilities (wouldn't it be fun if Dax, Harry Mudd, and Gary Seven show up?).
The cameo of Leonard Nimoy's Spock
The unexpectedness of the Kirk-radiation plot twist
The reappearance of the peerless Captain Pike
I expect I will think of more, but let me get this posted.
Anyway, NON SPOILER SECTION
I enjoyed all three movies, although my order of the three I mention would be: Pacific Rim, Monster University, Star Trek
I haven't been to many movies this year, or any year lately. All by itself, the fact I made the effort to see it in the theater was a compliment. I did not go to see the previous Star Trek, and it took me awhile (and a change in my thinking) to finally watch it.
The newest Star Trek movies basically got the Lost in Space movie treatment. Or Starsky and Hutch. Or the Beverly Hillbillies. They are not sequels to the original, or even remakes strictly speaking, but nostolgia-driven pop-culture-appealing gimmick-prone inspired-by entertainment-experiences.
To say that a movie with Kirk-Spock-McCoy and phasers and Klingons is good ol' Star Trek again is like saying my original Nintendo Star Trek 30th Anniversary game was right on par with the series in entertainment-genetics. Hey, the game was fun, with Harry Mudd, Saurian brandy, and Romulan birds-of-prey shooting at you (or threatening to). True to the classic series, I even learned to take along a few redshirts whenever bad guys were around.
SPOILER ALERT - SPOILER-FILLED SECTION - DO NOT ENTER WITHOUT CONSENT
I enjoyed the movie, but on terms of a fun sci-fi movie. It certainly was not bad. And I have seen some bad sci-fi movies, recently and in the past, so I am grateful for that.
So, in no partcular order, my gripes.
Khan crying, Spock crying, Kirk crying
Khan's defeat was not because of his 20th Century 2-Dimensional thinking, but rather a rather silly mistake (owing to a underestimation of Spock).
Khan was not Indian (tan-skinned), but this is understandable in light of tan-skinned terrorists in movies being a delicate proposition
Scotty not being replaced with an experienced Starfleet engineer (while docked at Earth for goodness sake! This was the most stupid part of the whole movie, except maybe the crying)
My compliments:
Carol Marcus showing up for perhaps more than one movie.
The idea that Khan and Carol Marcus are in this universe suggest boundless gimmick possibilities (wouldn't it be fun if Dax, Harry Mudd, and Gary Seven show up?).
The cameo of Leonard Nimoy's Spock
The unexpectedness of the Kirk-radiation plot twist
The reappearance of the peerless Captain Pike
I expect I will think of more, but let me get this posted.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Tartessos-Tarshish-Scheria-Atlantis/ Peacocks
I have been reading Willy Ley's new book, Lands Beyond. Actually, it's a book from the 1950s era co-authored with de Camp, but I prefer to hear Ley's voice in my head, and it's a new book to me. And for the publication date stills has a very "recent news" feel, which is impressive.
Anyway, it says more about the Bibical Tarshish and the historical Tartessos than I was aware of.
I had thought that perhaps the book would deteriorate into self-indulgent fantasy when speaking about mysteries like Atlantis, and I am releived it doesn't.
One of the large ideas put forth is that the Bibical Tarshish and historical Tartessos, long thought one and the same, might also be the city of Scheria from the Odessey and (the inspiration for?) the Atlantis of Plato. This four-way misidentification sounds worth looking into!
http://www.mysteria3000.de/magazin/the-archaeological-search-for-tartessos-tarshish-atlantis/
Sadly, Tarshish doesn't seem to have a wide consensus on identification, only a slim majority of scholarly opinion. Scheria and Atlantis would be much further remove from scholarly confidence.
While I think the hypotheses of the Indian coast and Britian are rather silly, I am prepared to consider Minoan Crete and Tarsus (of Bibical Paul's birthplace in modern Turkey) and Carthage as good candidates.
http://www.varchive.org/nldag/tarshish.htm
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesTarshish.html
Today I also looked up some bits of evidence that come from the Bible's description of Tarshish, or rather it's exports.
http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/2-chronicles-921-is-it-peacocks-or-baboons/
I had not known of the green peacock (or jungle peafowl) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Peafowl), although I did know of the Congo peacock (which is not closely related). I also did not know that the peacock is a central symbol in Japan, Babylon, and Persia, all places it is not native (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl). I also did not know the peacock was widely eaten in ancient times, nor did I know the peacock is kosher food (http://oukosher.org/blog/industrial-kosher/a-peafowl-by-any-other-name/).
Anyway, it says more about the Bibical Tarshish and the historical Tartessos than I was aware of.
I had thought that perhaps the book would deteriorate into self-indulgent fantasy when speaking about mysteries like Atlantis, and I am releived it doesn't.
One of the large ideas put forth is that the Bibical Tarshish and historical Tartessos, long thought one and the same, might also be the city of Scheria from the Odessey and (the inspiration for?) the Atlantis of Plato. This four-way misidentification sounds worth looking into!
http://www.mysteria3000.de/magazin/the-archaeological-search-for-tartessos-tarshish-atlantis/
Sadly, Tarshish doesn't seem to have a wide consensus on identification, only a slim majority of scholarly opinion. Scheria and Atlantis would be much further remove from scholarly confidence.
While I think the hypotheses of the Indian coast and Britian are rather silly, I am prepared to consider Minoan Crete and Tarsus (of Bibical Paul's birthplace in modern Turkey) and Carthage as good candidates.
http://www.varchive.org/nldag/tarshish.htm
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesTarshish.html
Today I also looked up some bits of evidence that come from the Bible's description of Tarshish, or rather it's exports.
http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/2-chronicles-921-is-it-peacocks-or-baboons/
I had not known of the green peacock (or jungle peafowl) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Peafowl), although I did know of the Congo peacock (which is not closely related). I also did not know that the peacock is a central symbol in Japan, Babylon, and Persia, all places it is not native (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl). I also did not know the peacock was widely eaten in ancient times, nor did I know the peacock is kosher food (http://oukosher.org/blog/industrial-kosher/a-peafowl-by-any-other-name/).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
