Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Sixty Second Film Corner: The Social Network
Almost certainly the absolute best film one could make from the source material: which is to say it's a pretty compelling take on a guy ending up in two legal battles after writing computer code because girls won't fuck him. Also contains the exact right amount of Sorkinisms, resulting in a film that is neither too dry, nor too heavy with his very impressive yet increasingly familiar array of tricks.
Monday, 8 November 2010
Two Walks
Obviously this ghoulish glut is the perfect opportunity to wax lyrical about Kirkman's baby and Darabont's treatment of it. The first half of this post contains a few very vague spoilers for the pilot episode. The second half will spoil the ever-loving shit out of "Fear The Hunters" and "Life Among Them", along with all that has gone before (though rejoice! Blogspot has finally added the ability to hide things after the jump).
On first viewing, the Walking Dead series seems to have worked out exactly what it needs to be doing; taking the bare bones of a fairly decompressed 22-page comic and using it as a blueprint (indeed, from what I can gather from the Wikipedia article the first series is six issues long, which may or may not mean the season ends in the same place as "Days Gone Bye" does). It manages to very successfully tread the fine line between offending purists and being very much its own story.
In fact, it's potentially telling that the best scenes in the pilot are those that owe least to what's contained in the comic. Morgan and Duane's predicament in particular - the regular return of the "walker" that was once wife and mother - is genuinely affecting, and makes a fascinating character out of someone who existed for almost nothing more then exposition in the comic version of "Days Gone Bye". I already care what happens to these characters, whereas the comic took most of the first two chapters to convince me that it was anything other than a pale retread of 28 Days Later.
Speaking of which, the pilot episode retains the most obviously cribbed idea from Danny Boyle's film; hero-wakes-up-in-abandoned-hospital, but Darabont has enough fun with it to make it entirely forgivable. Especially pleasing is the pitch-black stairwell descent, a four-match journey in which you're sure that each light struck will reveal something monstrous; only for Rick to escape unmolested into an ocean of filled body-bags and a wrecked military outpost. It's a nice way to avoid cliche and/or impose reality, much like not having anyone throw up at the sight of dead bodies or having gunshot inside a tank cause ear damage (the one mis-step: a couple who killed themselves after writing "GOD FORGIVE US" in blood on their own walls. This seems to be a traditional part of post-apocalyptic fiction, but I refuse to believe that anybody would ever actually do it.)
Further, Rick himself works better than I'd expected. I've generally had a hard time taking Andrew Lincoln seriously as anything other than a well-meaning, immature bumbler (This Life, Teachers), but he might just be able to turn me around this time. He hasn't sold me yet, but nor does such a sale seem impossible to imagine.
In short: so far, so good. Can't wait to see what happens next.
(I mean it, people; MASSIVE SPOILERS ahead)
Serious Considerations
Up now: issue #5 of Panel Talk, in which Chris B and myself discuss the Holocaust chronicle Maus with all the sensitivity and seriousness we can muster.
Friday, 5 November 2010
Friday Warhammer Blogging: Green Gavem Roote
At long last (i.e. after ten months) my River Lords force has gained its fifth knight, meaning my Tully bannermen have themselves a champion, and that I finally have a Knights of the Realm unit that is theoretically fieldable at 144 points (minus whatever magical gubbins I might want to lavish upon them).
Green Gawen Roote himself got his name when he was knighted by his father, Ser Benjen Roote, only two days after Gawen's fourteenth name-day, and following his first ever battle, in which he led a left flank which was almost untouched by battle, resulting in various other knights (and even more so their squires) muttering into their cups that Gawen was far too "green" to be a knight.
In the seven years which have followed Gawen has proven his valor and skills in countless engagements, yet the name remains, either as an affectionate term or in reference to House Roote's green-on-green coat of arms.
Green Gawen Roote himself got his name when he was knighted by his father, Ser Benjen Roote, only two days after Gawen's fourteenth name-day, and following his first ever battle, in which he led a left flank which was almost untouched by battle, resulting in various other knights (and even more so their squires) muttering into their cups that Gawen was far too "green" to be a knight.
In the seven years which have followed Gawen has proven his valor and skills in countless engagements, yet the name remains, either as an affectionate term or in reference to House Roote's green-on-green coat of arms.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
The Stormy Present
Well, that sucked to an unbelievable extent. Considering there was no realistic chance of the Republicans taking the Senate, yesterday has to qualify as fairly close to a worse case scenario.
Unsurprisingly, this has left me pretty down, as it should anyone who likes the idea of nuclear disarmament and not setting fire to the atmosphere. But what does it mean in real terms?
I can think of at least three questions buried inside the one above. First of all, what does it mean for the political landscape in 2012? What specifically does it mean for President Obama? And lastly, what does it mean for the people of the United States (and the world) for the next 24 months?
The answer to that first question depends on which of three scenarios play out. The first is that the Republicans fail to fix the economy, and indeed make it worse. Considering they share a great deal of the blame for getting the US into these straits in the first place, and various GOP big-hitters have turned a refusal to accept they did anything wrong into campaign pledges, this what I think is most likely to take place, and would hopefully lead to another major swing; this time in a direction slightly less pleasing to Ayn Rand, John Galt, and pretty much Satan himself.
The second option is the exact opposite; the Republican House actually does turn the economy around. I'll believe it when I see it (and I'll want some fairly significant analysis of the situation even then), but if they can do it, then they deserved to take back the House, and I'll just have to live with the fallout elsewhere. Much as I dislike the GOP, and actively despise some of their most high-profile members, this election was predominantly about the economy [1], and if they can fix it, they'll have done what they were asked to do.
The worst possible result purely in political terms (I'd much rather the economy was fixed than my guys win) is that the GOP does nothing to repair the economy but it rebounds due to other factors, giving the layman the impression that this ridiculous willingness to hand the car keys back to the drunk who crashed the car was a good idea. I don't know how likely that is, because I'm not an economist, but that's the thought that's going to keep me up at night. The first scenario, whilst unpleasant, is the most likely, and will at least have the advantage of potentially handing the House back to the Democrats in 2012. The second will almost certainly never happen, but it would demonstrate that the Republicans have finally worked out how to responsibly govern again, something I'm not sure has been particularly true since Nixon. The idea that the GOP watches the economy repair itself and then gets a few more years to set gays on fire and hurl them into mosques is more than I can stand.
Next: what of Obama? Certainly, he's going to have real trouble getting things through the House, but then he was having exceptional trouble getting things through the Senate in any case. Frankly, if there's one good thing to come out of yesterday's catastrophe, it's that the House has become more relevant. Sure, it's done it by becoming just as overwhelmingly fucking mental as the Senate is, but the latter's despicable refusal to ignore the other half of the legislative branch was a disgrace for reasons beyond party lines. One would hope that what is liable to be a reduction (potentially a significant reduction) of filibustering in the next two years will make people realise that the last Senate's refusal to do one goddamn single fucking thing had nothing to do with opposing the "tyranny of the majority" and everything to do with partisan politics. Naturally, this is unlikely to ever happen, but I guess there's always hope that a critical mass of people will start paying enough attention (of course, it was assuming that was a possibility that informed my predictions in the last post, and we saw how wrong they were...)
Given this, then, and the fact that the expectation is always that Presidents get their most important goals out of the way before the first midterms, I'm not sure how much difference it will make. Depending on whether the GOP distinguish or disgrace themselves in the next 24 months, it may affect Obama's re-election chances a little, but I don't think it will make a huge difference. The crop of potential Republican presidential candidates is as anaemic as it was on Monday, and that's what makes me fairly confident of Obama being re-elected. A lot of pundits are predicting an attempt by the Republican House to impeach Obama - based on comments various Republican leaders have made - but for now I think it's pretty unlikely. There's just no there there, y'know? The people who want Obama impeached for literally anything (and don't kid yourself, there are thousands of people exactly that stupid) are going to vote for his opponent in 2012 in any case, and I doubt you could peel off more than a fraction of a percent of the potential "undecideds" by holding hearings into Obama's over-use of Post-It notes, or whatever the Hell they decide they're going to throw at him.
That's politics in 2012 dealt with. This still leaves the fairly major question of exactly how boned the American populace is. I'm going to guess "extremely", but maybe I'm wrong this time. Maybe it's a case of "better the devil you know", though of course in this case it's a bit closer to "better the Devil you know fucked your entire country".
See also.
[1] Well, it was in very large part (see this post for a nice graphical explanation). I think there's also something to be said for this interpretation as well. It would be a mistake to put too much weight on the "Confederate Party" angle - those sorts of accusations are too serious to be thrown around trivially - but it's not hard to believe it played more of a role than anyone on the Right is prepared to admit. You only need to look at the tactics that swept Nixon into power to see that, and whilst we've had more than four decades of progress since then, it's not at all clear to me that all those years compensate for having a black man in the Whitehouse.
Unsurprisingly, this has left me pretty down, as it should anyone who likes the idea of nuclear disarmament and not setting fire to the atmosphere. But what does it mean in real terms?
I can think of at least three questions buried inside the one above. First of all, what does it mean for the political landscape in 2012? What specifically does it mean for President Obama? And lastly, what does it mean for the people of the United States (and the world) for the next 24 months?
The answer to that first question depends on which of three scenarios play out. The first is that the Republicans fail to fix the economy, and indeed make it worse. Considering they share a great deal of the blame for getting the US into these straits in the first place, and various GOP big-hitters have turned a refusal to accept they did anything wrong into campaign pledges, this what I think is most likely to take place, and would hopefully lead to another major swing; this time in a direction slightly less pleasing to Ayn Rand, John Galt, and pretty much Satan himself.
The second option is the exact opposite; the Republican House actually does turn the economy around. I'll believe it when I see it (and I'll want some fairly significant analysis of the situation even then), but if they can do it, then they deserved to take back the House, and I'll just have to live with the fallout elsewhere. Much as I dislike the GOP, and actively despise some of their most high-profile members, this election was predominantly about the economy [1], and if they can fix it, they'll have done what they were asked to do.
The worst possible result purely in political terms (I'd much rather the economy was fixed than my guys win) is that the GOP does nothing to repair the economy but it rebounds due to other factors, giving the layman the impression that this ridiculous willingness to hand the car keys back to the drunk who crashed the car was a good idea. I don't know how likely that is, because I'm not an economist, but that's the thought that's going to keep me up at night. The first scenario, whilst unpleasant, is the most likely, and will at least have the advantage of potentially handing the House back to the Democrats in 2012. The second will almost certainly never happen, but it would demonstrate that the Republicans have finally worked out how to responsibly govern again, something I'm not sure has been particularly true since Nixon. The idea that the GOP watches the economy repair itself and then gets a few more years to set gays on fire and hurl them into mosques is more than I can stand.
Next: what of Obama? Certainly, he's going to have real trouble getting things through the House, but then he was having exceptional trouble getting things through the Senate in any case. Frankly, if there's one good thing to come out of yesterday's catastrophe, it's that the House has become more relevant. Sure, it's done it by becoming just as overwhelmingly fucking mental as the Senate is, but the latter's despicable refusal to ignore the other half of the legislative branch was a disgrace for reasons beyond party lines. One would hope that what is liable to be a reduction (potentially a significant reduction) of filibustering in the next two years will make people realise that the last Senate's refusal to do one goddamn single fucking thing had nothing to do with opposing the "tyranny of the majority" and everything to do with partisan politics. Naturally, this is unlikely to ever happen, but I guess there's always hope that a critical mass of people will start paying enough attention (of course, it was assuming that was a possibility that informed my predictions in the last post, and we saw how wrong they were...)
Given this, then, and the fact that the expectation is always that Presidents get their most important goals out of the way before the first midterms, I'm not sure how much difference it will make. Depending on whether the GOP distinguish or disgrace themselves in the next 24 months, it may affect Obama's re-election chances a little, but I don't think it will make a huge difference. The crop of potential Republican presidential candidates is as anaemic as it was on Monday, and that's what makes me fairly confident of Obama being re-elected. A lot of pundits are predicting an attempt by the Republican House to impeach Obama - based on comments various Republican leaders have made - but for now I think it's pretty unlikely. There's just no there there, y'know? The people who want Obama impeached for literally anything (and don't kid yourself, there are thousands of people exactly that stupid) are going to vote for his opponent in 2012 in any case, and I doubt you could peel off more than a fraction of a percent of the potential "undecideds" by holding hearings into Obama's over-use of Post-It notes, or whatever the Hell they decide they're going to throw at him.
That's politics in 2012 dealt with. This still leaves the fairly major question of exactly how boned the American populace is. I'm going to guess "extremely", but maybe I'm wrong this time. Maybe it's a case of "better the devil you know", though of course in this case it's a bit closer to "better the Devil you know fucked your entire country".
See also.
[1] Well, it was in very large part (see this post for a nice graphical explanation). I think there's also something to be said for this interpretation as well. It would be a mistake to put too much weight on the "Confederate Party" angle - those sorts of accusations are too serious to be thrown around trivially - but it's not hard to believe it played more of a role than anyone on the Right is prepared to admit. You only need to look at the tactics that swept Nixon into power to see that, and whilst we've had more than four decades of progress since then, it's not at all clear to me that all those years compensate for having a black man in the Whitehouse.
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Midterm Election Prediction
Well, things aren't looking remotely rosy over in the States right now. I've been saying for a while that there was some hope of the Democrats holding on to the House by the skin of their teeth, but that's looking increasingly unlikely. Without having looked at any exit poll data just yet (voting hasn't been underway for too long in any case), I'm going to go for the Democrats/Independents keeping the Senate 53-47, and losing the House 216-219.
Let's see how badly we're fucked this time around...
Let's see how badly we're fucked this time around...
Hat In Hand
So, my interview went well. Not well, enough, though, so I am still apparently fated for a life of miserable destitution.
That is, of course, unless you give just five pounds a month to sponsor a mathematician!
Each sponsor will receive the following:
Remember: give a man a fish, and he'll feed himself for a day. Give a mathematician a fish, and he'll exchange it for booze and not show up to work for three days. Best stick to letting us pay for the coffee, is what we're saying.
That is, of course, unless you give just five pounds a month to sponsor a mathematician!
Each sponsor will receive the following:
- A monthly newsletter, filled with explanations as to why your sponsored mathematician hasn't produced anything;
- A signed photograph of the mathematician's PhD;
- A pledge to name a conjecture (£5 per month), lemma (£30 p.m.) or theorem (£500 p.m.) after the sponsor in the unlikely event such a thing is ever produced.
 |
| An entirely average example of the kind of mathematician who could become "indebted" to you TODAY! |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)