I have a rule when it comes to TV programming. If something is available on ITV2, then it's just not worth watching. Every rule needs its exceptions though and for this one it's Supernatural.
The show initially appeared to fit neatly in the CW's lineup of glossy aspirational teen dramas (of which it is safe to say I am no fan). I long avoided the show on this basis. However, at some point or another I was browsing on TV.com and saw that Supernatural was the top rated show. I generally don't put too much faith in these online ratings, but I was surprised to see so many people enjoy a show I hadn't even given a second glance to.
I was intrigued and had nothing better to do, so I gave it a shot. I was impressed. The pilot was dark, mysterious and exciting. After a few follow-up episodes I thought the series would fizzle out, but it kept going strong. In fact, it seemed to just get better and better.
The format is unusual for an American series. First off, it's anthological, with very little connecting each episode. The cast consists of only two recurring characters. Two. This is no ensemble.
The brothers, Sam and Dean, are 'Hunters' travelling from back-water town to back-water town to rescue the townsfolk from various paranormal evils. They're 'heroes', but their work is often difficult and imperfect. They don't save everyone, they don't always do the right thing and they often end up questioning what they do.
It's a compelling fantasy drama, with interesting, multi-dimensional, human protagonists who travel around 'kicking ass'. They visit untraditional locales and tell the untold story of small-town America.
Somehow this programme has convinced me that rural America is kinda cool. I have fantasies of driving in their Chevy Impala, listening to rock n roll whilst on my way to some dive bar in Hicksville, USA. How do they make this cool?
The programme increases in complexity from season to season, getting better and better. Much of this is due to great guest stars and consistently innovative writing.
However, I've just begun watching the fifth (and final) season and am questioning my allegiance. Without giving away any spoilers, the premise for this season seems like it could be the most interesting by far. As of yet, however the episodes have been fairly unremarkable. I very much hope the show can find it's feet again because it could be the best season yet.
This film is scary. Shit scary. I like to think of myself as a fairly hardened horror fan, but I still nearly crapped my pants watching it. Throughout the film is a constant atmosphere of complete tension.
If you haven't heard anything about Paranormal Activity before, it's a horror film shot using the cinéma vérité style à la Blair Witch and Cloverfield. Rather than acting as a window through which the viewer observes, the camera is a device within the story itself. This technique has appeared more and more frequently in the horror genre and personally, I welcome it. It creates a far more immersive experience and allows the viewer to truly connect with the characters. This makes for far scarier films than the slashers currently saturating the market.
Much unlike slasher films, Paranormal Activity contains very little violence. The tension instead comes from the fear of violence. Much of the film is taken up by expositional dialogue, revealing much about the couple's relationship and history. They are not one-dimensional archetypes, but real people. Their reactions to the increasingly frightening events are similarly real and believable.
I found myself empathising with them entirely. I really cared. With most horror films, I can distance myself from the action and tell myself it's just a film. That was impossible here. I was scared out of my mind, but also compelled to keep watching. That is the mark of a great horror film.
I've never been great with presents. If it's someone I know well, I'm ok, but even then I never know how far to go. I like to make the recipient happy, but not uncomfortable. Alright, maybe I just think too much about this stuff and over-analyse. But anyway, this time I thought I might do something a little special.
Having spent quite a lot of time over the past few months basically learning how to draw and create art, I now have a creative tool that I can put to good use. My sister's birthday was coming up and I thought it might be nice to paint (can I still call it that if I'm using a computer?) something and use it as a birthday card.
She likes elephants. They're her favourite animal. I can kind of draw animals so I thought that's a good start.
Here's the first sketch.
I then added the outline and coloured the eyes.
I started with shadowing and then realised I had gone way too dark, too early. I did some colour editing on that layer to enhance the midtones, so in later images those shadows aren't so obvious. I also added that grey wash.
Used a fairly low opacity brush for the shadows and played around with the layer opacity to get it the right colour. I also added a foreground layer for the grass. The grass brush on CS4 is awesome. I've tried creating custom brushes and it's hard to get the settings just right. It's nice to have something so useful that just works right off the bat.
I used a really large brush to do the blue sky and used the grass brush again to create more...grass. I also had to add a white underlay to the elephant because the blue background kept showing through. I did this manually but I'm sure there must be an easier way. If anyone reading has any photoshop experience and knows a better way, I'd appreciate the info.
[click the image for full res]
I was also going to include this message as the inlay, but I didn't get around to it. I'm a bit of a sucker for that messy-but-somehow-neat script.
Sarah, if you're reading, Happy Birthday. Hope you liked the card.
I was really bored and ended up browsing through the youtube top-rated list. I haven't done this for quite some time. I was expecting to find funny cat videos, but instead I came across this lovely chap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74
[apologies, FB users, if the HTML code below doesn't function - it should work on my blogspot]
It was possibly quite naive of me, but I was a bit shocked after watching that. Not so much because of what was said, but more because of the response he received. Overwhelming support. The comments section below was littered with users applauding him and (as I said earlier) it was one of the top rated videos of the month.
I don't normally comment on videos myself - mainly because I'm watching videos of funny cats, so there's very little for me to say other than, "Oh that cat did something in a way that was incredibly funny and yet simultaneously cute. This truly is a wonderful time to be alive."
However, religion is a subject I feel quite passionate about and I thought now was the time to get in on the action and see what people say. After having spent some time at the arsehole of the internet I was well aware of flame wars. I was not keen on getting involved in one, but it has been interesting discussing this topic with strangers.
I've posted the comments I've made for two different videos and then posted the replies. The discussion is still ongoing so I might update this post when I receive something new.
I: This is one of the top rated videos on youtube this month. Find the statement about needing a peaceful society a bit hypocritical considering how his video is quite openly Islamophobic. His argument fails in the same place as many others. An inability to distinguish between politics, religion and culture. This kind of backlash does no-one any favours. It only alienates peaceful Muslims living happily in this society
Caracalla23: @I But does Islam distinguish between religion, culture and politics.
I: @Caracalla23 Well that's just falling into the same trap. Do you mean British/American Muslims, Middle-Eastern Muslims, Islamic scholars or political figures in Islamic countries?
The answers would be different for each group. Moreover it would be different for each individual. No religion is one entity.
Caracalla23: @I So theres absolutely no conformity amongst Muslims? Every Muslim is an Island entire of himself? But surely there must be a large number of core beliefs amongst the 100s millions of Sunnis. (and those beliefs from an outsiders perspective are becoming increasingly narrow and conservative) If theres not then why call it Islam? Then why call it a religion?
I: @Caracalla23 Tbh, I'm not sure I fully understand your argument. I wasn't saying that there are no similarities, I just think that it's not fair to group Muslims all together. Some Muslims do have very conservative views, others are more open and progressive. Attacking 'Islam' is far too unspecific and general.
I: I find this man a terrible representative for atheism. The arguments he makes are packed full of rhetoric and emotion, but little substance. Religions are not 'evil'. That concept is an incredible oversimplification and implies that every follower of that religion is also 'evil'. Attacking people's beliefs will in no way align them to your cause. These videos consist of needless provocation. Bashing religion gets you nowhere....
InfidelArmee: @I,"Religions are not 'evil' ". True. Religions are a lot of Dumbshit. By Dumbshits. For Dumbshits. Islam is NOT a Religion. Islam is a Totalitarian, Supremacist Ideology. Islam is Nazism. IslamoNazism.
I: @InfidelArmee Wikipedia search: Godwin's Law
InfidelArmee: @I I did. Your Point, Nazi?
robertangel30: @I Bashing religion gets you everywhere. Religious minded adults are lost for the most part, they must have an intellectual epiphany. The young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced by Pat.
I believe there is a youtube video that says "the internet is the place religions come to die." Very True indeed.
I: @robertangel30 I don't think there is much positive influence here. I can't see how atheism is any better than religion if people still use the same strong-armed tactics to 'recruit' more to their cause.
The simple fact is that what he says is all lies and hyperbole. I can't see how any of this is different from preaching. It's just as one-sided and narrow-minded.
richybinns @I Recruit? I knew I didn't believe in fairies long before I knew the word "ATHEIST"
How can being told to think for yourself be considered strong-arm? being told to believe or die better describes that tactic.
I: @richybinns I was referring to the post before me by robertangel30: "young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced" You're right. Strong-arm probably wasn't the best term, but he does use a lot of rhetoric and much of what he says is unfounded. There are huge leaps of judgement made in writing off everything religion does as 'evil', cleverly ignoring any good it might do. It's a polemic argument and not a particularly strong one.
eddietaylor: @I There is nothing narrow minded about atheism. All atheists have had to examine all the evidence ( I use that term loosely) and think it through independantly, and despite everything that we are taught or told from being small children, have arrived at the conclusion that god is bollocks. That is very different from being told that everything you see was made by an invisible man, and soaking it up like a sponge without any resistance. Now that IS narrow minded.
I: @eddietaylor I think you've missed my point a little. I don't think that atheism is in any way narrow-minded, but atheists can be. Using the word 'evil' to describe millions of people is just illogical to me. Not all people believe the same things or act the same way, regardless of religious/spiritual belief. I'm an atheist myself, but I do find it frustrating when other atheists display such intolerance for religion.
eddietaylor: @I Point taken, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. This intolerance from atheists is simply minute in comparison with the intolerance of muslims and christians TO atheists, and even that pales into insignificance when compared to their intolerance of each other. You and I are entitled to be frustrated, because reason is being clouded by ancient superstition. Also, freedom of speech creates animosity by default. People should come down from their own assholes and deal with that.
I: @eddietaylor Well you're probably right about that. I could see how blind faith leads to greater intolerance. I suppose what I feel uncomfortable with is that Pat (man in video) had several videos that were in the top-rated this month. It's worrying to me that a viewpoint such as his is seen by many as a very good thing. It's also worrying that many religious people will see this and think this is what all atheist think, therefore increasing the intolerance of atheism you mentioned.
robertangel30: @I When you say that what Pat says "is all lies". You no longer have any any credibility. Please point out one factual lie. And please remember that exageration is not a lie.
I: @robertangel30 Well yes you're entirely right. I was exaggerating myself there. He uses very heavy rhetoric to twist arguments in his favour and rarely makes adequate (and often crucial) distinctions. He uses many examples (such as the Pope protecting sex-offenders) to justify why ALL of religion is bad. Plenty of bad things have been done by religious people and plenty done by non-religious people. This is just an extreme generalisation. It's hard to listen to such an unbalanced viewpoint.
robertangel30: @I Very nice. Reasonalbe retort. We come from very different premises. Pat and I know the all religions are false. You believe in yours. Thus you can never understand his points. You have what I like to prefer as a mind bump. You can never and will never get past it. Our premises guide us.
I: @robertangel30 I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I'm also an atheist. I think that's why I find it so hard to hear. It might be quite arrogant but I think I get his point, but I don't like how extreme it is. I don't think atheism is the answer to the world's problems. I don't believe that religion is the cause for all these bad things and I don't think things would be all that different if religion just went away.
==========================================
Looking back this seems like a very accurate representation of the world of online discussion. There's some agreement, LOTS of disagreement and some blatant trolling too.
I had some more free time recently so I thought I would try practice shooping because I suck at photoshop. I think I'm ok at drawing using a tablet so I've managed to create decent images, but then I've ruined them every time I tried to add colour. Digital painting, it seems, requires skills I do not possess.
Trying not to let this crush me too much, I went back to basics and just watched scores of youtube tutorials. After an embarassingly long period of time, I managed to create my first passable painting.
Yup that's right, folks - a ball. Couldn't really get much simpler than that. However, it did teach me a lot about how the program actually works and the importance of layering. I also learnt the importance of keyboard short-cuts. These drastically speed up your work.
I learnt a lot, but it's frustrating not being able to create what you envisage. On this next painting I tried to be far more ambitious with the complexity and range of techniques I used.
First, a basic sketch. I decided on Samurai Jack. He's a simple, bold character and the artwork in that program was just so stunning. He felt like an appropriate choice.
Next using paths I created an outline. I've never used this tool before so it was a little hard to get used to, but it's just perfect for creating smooth lines.
Used the gradient tool here to create these...gradients. A very simple effect but adds depth and some shadowing to the image.
Finally I created a background using brushwork and colour overlays. This was probably the most complex part of the image. Many layers of varying opacities and effects are used to make the fiery red tones. [click on the image to view full res]
Pretty happy with the end result anyway. It's nothing incredible but it looks decent and, more importantly, I've learnt a lot on the way.
Final point. If you haven't watched Samurai Jack, just do. Incredible animation and style. It's one of the best (if not the best) Western animations about.
Taking any excuse to talk about the lighter side of politics, has anyone noticed that Ben Bradshaw has this whole sexy Nigel Havers thing going on....? Bradshaw
Havers
I realise more and more that there are a lot of shouldnt-but-woulds in the world of British politics. My short-list would probably include Clegg, David Milliband and Yvette Cooper (has this whole MILF thing going on). Well they do say politics is show business for ugly people.....
Ok, so it's not exactly a second opinion, seeing as it's pretty much the same opinion I had before but now I've just watched more. If you didn't read my original post, I can pretty much sum it up by saying that Firefly is the greatest sci-fi show ever made...In fact, why don't we go all the way? It's also the best adventure show ever made and beats the crap out of most dramas and comedies too. It's awesome, genre-spanning stuff.
I'm halfway through the series now - after spending the past two days locked to my TV - and have just finished watching Jaynestown. This episode really struck me for two reasons: firstly, it's an exceptional episode and secondly, Joss didn't write it.
I'm a huge fan of Whedon's shows and I've always liked that he uses the same core writing staff. There is something that does niggle at me though. Almost all the best Angel, Buffy and Dollhouse episodes are written and/or directed by Whedon himself. Seriously, he's just always amazing. His episodes are the smartest, funniest and most moving.
It seems like a weird criticism to say that Whedon is just TOO good, but he really does outshine his writing staff by a significant amount. I've always felt that others should get a shot. I was pretty stoked when I found out this episode was written by Ben Edlund, mastermind of the brilliant Angel episode, Smile Time. To keep it brief, Jaynestown is also incredible. So kudos, Mr Edlund!
Jayne, a character that mainly serves as the comic relief, has a real meaty story here to help flesh out and develop his character. I love how Whedon's shows don't ever forget the little guy - or in Jayne's case, the very BIG little guy! The episode is funny, moving and deep. Edlund manages to work in an incredibly interesting sub-plot for River and Book covering humanity's need for faith and spirituality whilst simultaneously using Jayne's main plot to challenge our nature of relying on those greater than us (i.e. God) to make our future better. This isn't just an episode. This is an essay, presenting both arguments and supporting them. IN-CRED-IBLE stuff.
In the other episodes I watched there has been much done to build on the solid foundation of the premiere. Best of all is Mal and Inara's relationship which, as I alluded to before, could very well be Joss's best on-screen romance, providing ample (and well-exploited) opportunity for both comedy and drama. I can't imagine myself ever getting tired of their fiery passion and constant conflict.
Credit is due to the writing staff who consistently manage to make Inara's role link in seamlessly with the work of Mal's crew, without ever appearing contrived or peculiar. Even though she works alone they manage to incorporate her into every episode. Whether she's on an 'ambassadorial' mission or with the rest of the crew, it always feels like she belongs on Serenity. Nothing breaks that reality and reminds you that you're watching a TV show. It all just feels right.
I love how the documentary-style shaky cam is used for all the shots on the ship to help maintain this realism. For all you Battlestar fans, this was done over 2 years before BSG was made. In fact, by comparison, Battlestar just seems so over-the-top. Every event is so GODSDAMN life-threatening that the camera has to move around at 100mph just to keep up with all the GODSDAMN FRAKKING important stuff. It's hard to watch that series without getting carsick.
However, Firefly has a gentle, natural shake and they use just the right amount of lens flare. They juxtapose the function and fluidity of running a crew of space pirates with the stillness and eerie beauty of space. It looks stunning and sets a great tone for the show - perfect for the whole Space-Cowboy theme.
Brilliant writing. Brilliant direction. Based on what I've seen so far, I'd be tempted to say that this show is perfect.
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett says he's "bewildered" by Nick Clegg's fascination with bringing in proportional representation which, he says, would result in the current horse-trading being repeated after every election. He tells Sunday Live he believes the Conservatives and Lib Dems will "cobble together" an agreement but that stable government is "much, much more important than some squabble over the voting system."
Blunkett's statement does illustrate the mentality of politicians. For them, this is a job and the connection between what they do and the democratic rights of the electorate must be intangable. It's no wonder that the public feel more disempowered than ever in a genertaion when we know far more about politics and politicians.
Even senior politicians don't seem to understand the frustration people feel when their vote is meaningless under an unfair system. The democratic ideal of each person having an equal voice is the most important thing to uphold. Surely the politicians should be forced into learning how to get along, instead of stripping the public of their democratic rights!
Just to nag at the Tories for a minute - they preach of a society in which each individual is responsible for the success of the whole and yet openly support a voting system that strips those same individuals of their ability to make choices on the most significant issues. It also conveniently allows them to keep a grip on their power. They constantly complain about the Nanny State and the over-reaching arms of Government and yet tell the voters they can't vote for who they want because a Tory majority is the only way to keep the country stable. It's just patronising and hypocritical.
ADDENDUM:
A little bit of number crunching and some generalisations here, but I'm fairly certain that much of this is somewhat reliable. Looking purely at vote-share the Conservatives got 36.1%, Lab 29% and Lib Dem 23%. Combining the centre-left votes comes to 52% and whilst I'm not sure that all Lib Dem voters would want a Labour government I'm sure that most wouldn't mind one. I'm also sure that most of them are strongly anti-Tory. 52% (and more if you include the fringe parties) of the country are supportive of anything but a Tory government and yet they'll almost certainly be in power. I'm beginning to think that a Big Brother-style elimination vote would end up with more satisfied voters than our current system. It would eliminate the fringe and there would be no vote wasting. That's possibly the most depressing thought I've had in a long while....our voting system is inferior to reality TV.
Ok, so I'm a bit of a Joss Whedon fanboy and any opinion I have has to be taken with a pinch of salt. In my experience it's hard for a die hard fan to express any opinion (about the thing they're a die hard fan of) that can be even remotely comprehended by anyone who isn't themselves a die hard fan. I generally try to avoid the kind of overt bias typical of fanboy writing because it's pointless for most people to read. Nevertheless I can't ignore that after rewatching the first episode of Firefly there is a part of my brain that's just screaming "OMFGWTF!THISISTHEGREATESTSCI-FIPROGRAMEVER!!!". I just needed to get that out of the way.
Admittedly I loved it the first time around, but having gone through a phase of rewatching many of Whedon's shows, I've come to find greater respect for the artistry behind much of his work. If there's one important common element in all of these shows, it's that if you look hard enough, you see the hidden depth of thought beneath the surface. They're very deceptive actually because even the 'surface' is deeper than most shows. It's easy to be fooled into thinking that all the writers' time was spent writing the incredibly witty dialogue, charming characters and on creating interesting set pieces, but they go far beyond that. Firefly is no exception and after (re)watching only one episode I've discovered a greater love for it than ever before.
Well let's start off with the simple stuff. Firefly is witty, exciting and entertaining. The series' film-length premiere was jam-packed full of brilliant one-liners, expansive environments and frequent nail-biting tension. It's easy to think this is just a classic adventure sci-fi akin to something like Star Wars (I would actually go so far as saying it actually does this better). In 83 minutes the pacing never once lets up. We're introduced to a cast of over 10 major characters and 4 completely distinct sets of antagonists (Badger, Patience, The Alliance and the Reavers). In one episode! One episode!! Not once during this time did I feel that any plot-point was contrived or truncated. It all just works.
Now, chances are, that I've already lost you and you've written me off as just another sci-fi geek whose sole idea of excitement is the release of a new issue of his favourite comic book. Well, sadly you'd probably be right there, but I'm going to have to continue anyway. If anything just so that my brain doesn't explode from having to contain all this information.
All this stuff is great. In case you haven't got it already, it's really great. Imagine my glee when, upon rewatching, I realised there was actually more to this than I initially thought. Several core themes hit me much harder this time. Greatest of all is the 'religious' triangle that connects Mal, Book and Inara - Christianity, Far Eastern spirituality and Mal's loss of Christian faith, all clash here. Particularly in Book's initial meeting with Inara and then later as Book breaks down in front of her, both scenes involving Mal's aggressive attacks on the two strong religious figures.
Mal and Inara's relationship is a constant source of really interesting interpersonal dynamics. Their fierce arguments and clear yearning for each other provide endless opportunity not only to serve as the series' core romantic interest (I say 'core' because there are no fewer than 3 interesting romances on board Serenity) but also as important device for exploring these characters. I really didn't believe Whedon could improve on the Buffy-Angel exchange, but I think he's onto a winner here.
There are seeds sown all over the place for seemingly endless exploration. Zoe and Wash's love triangle with Mal, the mysterious and malevolant Alliance, Reavers, Wild West style pioneer culture, Zoe and Mal's involvement in the War, Jayne's potential for betrayal, Simon and Kaylee's romance, River's experience in 'the programme', Book's mysterious past. Seriously, I'm not even covering everything. Once again, I stress that this is ONE episode! Alright, so it's the length of two episodes back-to-back, but still, I can't think of a better series opener. I just can't wait to watch the next one.
I've not read much Philip K Dick, but he comes highly recommended from several friends of mine. I've read parts of Ubik, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and A Scanner Darkly but never found them engaging enough to finish. Having now completed The Man in the High Castle, I realise that many of my original criticisms were probably well-founded - confusing plots, odd characters and unnatural and erratic pacing. However, I've also realised that none of this matters. I've really come to appreciate Dick's genius.
The story is set in an alternate reality in which the Nazis won WWII. They control Europe, Africa, South America and the East Coast of the (now former) United States. The story takes place on the West Coast of the USA, now the Japanese occupied PSA (Pacific States of America). Reading all this in the blurb, I expected a highly political plot, centering mainly on events that help flesh out the alternate history Dick has created.
To a certain extent this is correct, but it's such a small part of the overall piece. Dick goes to incredible lengths to create this detailed and thoughtful alternate world and then writes an entire chapter about a character (Mr Childan) struggling with the dilemna of giving a gift to a customer's wife for feeling it would be improper. Another chapter ponders the nature of historicity and authenticity of antiques.
This is not at all a flaw. If anything it's an example of his greatness. Not only does Dick create a vivid alternate world - displaying incredible insight into Japanese culture, Nazi psychology and an uncanny ability to emotionally channel the characters he writes for - but he manages to incorporate in-depth philiosophical and existential discussion.
The novel is unlike any other I've read before. It constantly challenges the expectations of the reader, jumping around unpredictably and always providing food for thought. It's unconventional, interesting and always brilliantly written. This should definitely be on more reading lists. It truly is under-appreciated genius.
