This is a post on an IMDb Forum. Posts on these forums may eventually get lost, so I post here, too, just for the sake of showing which some episodes of Voyager I liked.
I won't say cried, because it's corny and mostly I didn't, but definitely misty-eyed and choked up.
In no particular order from all the episodes mentioned here:
"Jetrel"
"Tuvix"
"Drone" (Jeri Ryan's best moments)
"Riddles" (Tuvok attacked by mysterious aliens, loses memory)
"Once Upon a Time" (where a shuttle crashes and Ensign Wildman records a farewell message to her daughter)
"Imperfection" is good, but I can't remember the episode very well. (about 7 of 9 getting too emotional and Icheb worrying about it)
"Lifesigns" was poignant (The Doctor getting to be with a Vidiian woman).
"Innocence" (Tuvok stranded on a planet with kids)
"Remember" was really good (Torres getting memories from an older lady about genocide).
"Timeless" is very good in execution, but Garrett Wang's acting wasn't so much, though he tried.
esmaspäev, 28. november 2011
pühapäev, 27. november 2011
The Eavesdropper is only hearing thoughts
This post is in reply to a post on IMDb.
A typical misconception in entertainment industries — perhaps carried over from older mediums (print and radio), where text and speech was important to communicate ideas — is that people only think in speech, while I prefer to think that there are people who rely on text to think and that there are people who use mental images in their thought processes.
This makes catching someone's thoughts more difficult, if a person observed uses the kind of mental imagery that necessarily does not use that person's own (inner) voice, but that of someone s/he thinks about. The trick, then, is to be able to detect what the person's underpinning thought process is in relation to the image and the activity in that image that is working in their primary consciousness. The difference here is in getting to observe what the person perceives in their thought processes, and actually eavesdrop on what he or she really thinks about. Overlap isn't always guaranteed.
Since I haven't seen the film, I guess the experiment was in getting people (or just the protagonist; see below) to only 'hear' someone's thoughts, but not necessarily see them. This would mean that the ability of perception was probably limited to receiving just one type of sensing faculty.
Given the film's premise of 14 people (out of 15) becoming crazy as a result, then I guess the failed method did not include a filter on these people, and so their minds vere overwhelmed. I remember this issue was once handled in an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", where Buffy's mind-reading sensitivity to read others' minds and sensing radius progressively expanded to the point that it became almost impossible to have a sane mind.
See the Mental image article on Wikipedia for more.
Another point is that even despite filmmakers, of all people, realizing that people also think in images, then it's probably just easier to use the "hearing of thoughts" method than "seeing the thoughts" method, as the former is cheaper, while the latter may sometimes require expensive means of post-production to visualise 'seeing' someone's thoughts. Think "Minority Report" and "Brainstorm" (1983).
P.S.
Saw a poster and that George Takei was in it, so got here.
A typical misconception in entertainment industries — perhaps carried over from older mediums (print and radio), where text and speech was important to communicate ideas — is that people only think in speech, while I prefer to think that there are people who rely on text to think and that there are people who use mental images in their thought processes.
This makes catching someone's thoughts more difficult, if a person observed uses the kind of mental imagery that necessarily does not use that person's own (inner) voice, but that of someone s/he thinks about. The trick, then, is to be able to detect what the person's underpinning thought process is in relation to the image and the activity in that image that is working in their primary consciousness. The difference here is in getting to observe what the person perceives in their thought processes, and actually eavesdrop on what he or she really thinks about. Overlap isn't always guaranteed.
Since I haven't seen the film, I guess the experiment was in getting people (or just the protagonist; see below) to only 'hear' someone's thoughts, but not necessarily see them. This would mean that the ability of perception was probably limited to receiving just one type of sensing faculty.
Given the film's premise of 14 people (out of 15) becoming crazy as a result, then I guess the failed method did not include a filter on these people, and so their minds vere overwhelmed. I remember this issue was once handled in an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", where Buffy's mind-reading sensitivity to read others' minds and sensing radius progressively expanded to the point that it became almost impossible to have a sane mind.
See the Mental image article on Wikipedia for more.
Another point is that even despite filmmakers, of all people, realizing that people also think in images, then it's probably just easier to use the "hearing of thoughts" method than "seeing the thoughts" method, as the former is cheaper, while the latter may sometimes require expensive means of post-production to visualise 'seeing' someone's thoughts. Think "Minority Report" and "Brainstorm" (1983).
P.S.
Saw a poster and that George Takei was in it, so got here.
esmaspäev, 21. november 2011
Of closets and people
As time goes on and many other people come out of the closet (such as Zachary Quinto), then I get more and more comfortable with famous people not coming out of the closet or not revealing any of their private lives (mostly because of family reasons), and not just because they have a job made more dangerous if they were out.
It is because there are other people now who are coming out of the closet, more and more so. One day, Page Six is just going to have its own section every day: "People who came out today," hopefully well before obituaries at the back.
The only caveat being that some people might decide to stay in the closet for exactly this reason :\
Some actors might choose to stay in the closet to get better considered for 'straight' roles (somehow I think it still happens like that), but a recent blog post or article, probably at Post Apocalyptic Bohemian, suggested that the movie industry should also start appreciating gay actors who can convincingly play straight roles, as "Brokeback Mountain" so well proved to us in reverse.
It is because there are other people now who are coming out of the closet, more and more so. One day, Page Six is just going to have its own section every day: "People who came out today," hopefully well before obituaries at the back.
The only caveat being that some people might decide to stay in the closet for exactly this reason :\
Some actors might choose to stay in the closet to get better considered for 'straight' roles (somehow I think it still happens like that), but a recent blog post or article, probably at Post Apocalyptic Bohemian, suggested that the movie industry should also start appreciating gay actors who can convincingly play straight roles, as "Brokeback Mountain" so well proved to us in reverse.
neljapäev, 17. november 2011
Women, kids, and Stargate Universe
To refer to a user on GateWorld Forums who contended that the most populous demographic watching Stargate Universe (SGU) were older (white) men who would watch any and all Stargate that was available. He asked if women and kids "killed" SGU — implying those Nielsen viewers who didn't watch Stargate Universe, thereby letting SyFy have low ratings as the official reason as to not renewing SGU.I haven't seen the Nielsen statistics, but based on information presented here (that mostly men watched), then the conclusion is that not all [i]Nielsen[/i] women could watch the show — preferring "Dancing With The Star(let)s". — And those that could watch couldn't let their kids watch, effectively sacrificing watching it themselves.
Part of SyFy's favoured demographic wasn't adult enough: The young kids who couldn't see (under-14's), and older kids who wouldn't watch (the video game generation not interested in character drama). And assuming those were mostly male. The 'girl' demographic could have been turned off either by the very concept of science fiction, or other interests, such as Dancing With My Two Left Feet and a goth woman scientist secretly infatuated with her father-figure-boss.
There's been another thread over here questioning if any of the women characters could have been or could have become someone like Carter (I haven't read through all the thread yet, but I do have a draft reply for it), or very nearly as perfect as her. You know, these people are very few and far between anyway; the closest real-life examples are women astronauts or someone like Valerie Plame. — I have to admit I dropped my jaw when I first saw her on tv (IIRC :-).
This must probably be a cultural thing that women in nowadays' U.S.-based (or -targeted) television shows are very strong characters, possessing almost superwoman-like capabilities in each show, including NCIS, SG-1, and so on; as if that were something who young American women would strive to be, thereby failing to tolerate characters more fallible than your average superchick.
Truth of the matter is, that most people (including women) just are not as perfect as the 'hero'-type characters presented on popular tv shows. I have to contend that SGU was so realistic in its presentation that it perhaps turned viewers off to the collective dismay of us fans. I remember an unintentionally funny line by an SGU hater who wrote (on IMDb, I think) that tv shows weren't supposed to show real life...
Oh, and the kids that did watch SGU, didn't watch it from a Nielsen box, but I guess, very much on their own terms. I am also considering failures in marketing SGU, but I don't know where did the responsibilities lie as to who was supposed to do exactly what.
esmaspäev, 31. oktoober 2011
Three Excellent Women
...of comedy and drama —
In no particular order:
• Mindy Sterling (Frau Fabrissina, the cohort of Dr. Evil from Mike Myers' Austin Powers franchise)
• Linda Hunt (Ilsa Grunt in "If Looks Could Kill")
• Fran Lebowitz (not Lei-, so take note of that) — In terms of cutting wit, she's on the same level as Professor Sidney Morgenbesser and physicist Lev Landau)
Common denominators: These women are all short... (ish), witty (on screen or off screen or both), and accomplished. I realized that Lebowitz and Hunt are also lesbians, which makes the mix all the more fabulous :>
Moreover, they all belong to the same generation, and before knowing any better, I'd sometimes mix at least the first two up in my mind as the same person, one or the other.
The reason I wrote this, is because I somewhat stumbled upon a post written about Lebowitz by Stephen at post apocalyptic bohemian [sic].
So much of that :>
In no particular order:
• Mindy Sterling (Frau Fabrissina, the cohort of Dr. Evil from Mike Myers' Austin Powers franchise)
• Linda Hunt (Ilsa Grunt in "If Looks Could Kill")
• Fran Lebowitz (not Lei-, so take note of that) — In terms of cutting wit, she's on the same level as Professor Sidney Morgenbesser and physicist Lev Landau)
Common denominators: These women are all short... (ish), witty (on screen or off screen or both), and accomplished. I realized that Lebowitz and Hunt are also lesbians, which makes the mix all the more fabulous :>
Moreover, they all belong to the same generation, and before knowing any better, I'd sometimes mix at least the first two up in my mind as the same person, one or the other.
Another witty woman of the same generation is Carrie Fisher.Sometimes it feels as if the three are really the same person, or three sisters of the same family scattered around the country.
(Oh, no men to speak of from the same generation, cuz I don't know of any >:-)
The reason I wrote this, is because I somewhat stumbled upon a post written about Lebowitz by Stephen at post apocalyptic bohemian [sic].
So much of that :>
reede, 7. oktoober 2011
Soldier and Outlander
This is in reply to one or more posts in an IMDb forum concerning themselves with intricacies surrounding Outlander (2008), an indie science fiction film.
First off, I didn't know Outlander was an indie science fiction movie.
The indie factor alone is worth alot.
What is most interesting, perhaps, is, that Outlander has a greater IMDb score with 6.3/10 points (from 23,768 votes), than the rather similarly themed Soldier, with just 5.6/10 points and 19,190 votes, despite Soldier being ten years older than Outlander.
Soldier's Rotten Tomatoes score is only 10%, while Outlander has 38%.
Both are box office flops with these numbers:
• Soldier: budget U.S. $75 mil/$15,000,000~ gross worldwide;
• Outlander: budget $47 mil/$6,192,098 worldwide gross.
Unfortunately, Outlander's budget-to-return ratio lesser :(
Nevertheless, I wonder if Outlander has made a greater impact, given the greater number of votes for Outlander for a three-year period and Soldier over a thirteen-year period (or is it because of a greater number of Internet users?), because I think Jim Caviezel still made a really good performance there. I mean, the film is nice for Caviezel alone :)
First off, I didn't know Outlander was an indie science fiction movie.
The indie factor alone is worth alot.
What is most interesting, perhaps, is, that Outlander has a greater IMDb score with 6.3/10 points (from 23,768 votes), than the rather similarly themed Soldier, with just 5.6/10 points and 19,190 votes, despite Soldier being ten years older than Outlander.
Soldier's Rotten Tomatoes score is only 10%, while Outlander has 38%.
Both are box office flops with these numbers:
• Soldier: budget U.S. $75 mil/$15,000,000~ gross worldwide;
• Outlander: budget $47 mil/$6,192,098 worldwide gross.
Unfortunately, Outlander's budget-to-return ratio lesser :(
Nevertheless, I wonder if Outlander has made a greater impact, given the greater number of votes for Outlander for a three-year period and Soldier over a thirteen-year period (or is it because of a greater number of Internet users?), because I think Jim Caviezel still made a really good performance there. I mean, the film is nice for Caviezel alone :)
laupäev, 1. oktoober 2011
Going All the Way
Film review that was first a comment; in reply to a thread on IMDb.
I waited, too, to see if they'd discover one another further than what's in the movie, though New York's Greenwich Village alluded to as much.
The film felt open-ended and probably stayed true to the very letter of the novel it was based on, which, I assume, was just as vague, suggesting several possible outcomes, depending on the eye of the beholder.
I would have ended it differently and sweetly. Even if such a happy-end situation were there, then after they guys would meet in NYC, the most possible outcome would have by then been known in advance to any viewer with a brain.
Fortunately, the ending was not as tragic as the one in "The Locusts"...
Would I (have) cast a different actor to play Sonny, just for the sake of seeing Sonny and Gunner (as played by Affleck) discover one another and consummate a possible guy/guy relationship brewing underneath?
Well, I don't know if I would — Davies is just too unique an actor, and the original story shows an environment so devoid of substance that it would not want to suggest anything that would be gay; For example, sodomy laws in the U.S. were not repealed before 1970's, neither was homosexuality an acceptable topic in the kind of polite society shown in this film. The novel by the same title was published in 1970, which is when attitudes towards homosexuality in the U.S. somehow started to thaw, and then only really slowly.
I think I did notice some lines in the movie from which I could infer that there could have been guy/guy relationships, I think in the very inconspicous way Gunner formed words in his sentences. Oh well.
Yet, in conclusion, "Going All the Way" did suggest possible ways of how the Beat Generation sprung up.
I waited, too, to see if they'd discover one another further than what's in the movie, though New York's Greenwich Village alluded to as much.
The film felt open-ended and probably stayed true to the very letter of the novel it was based on, which, I assume, was just as vague, suggesting several possible outcomes, depending on the eye of the beholder.
I would have ended it differently and sweetly. Even if such a happy-end situation were there, then after they guys would meet in NYC, the most possible outcome would have by then been known in advance to any viewer with a brain.
Fortunately, the ending was not as tragic as the one in "The Locusts"...
Would I (have) cast a different actor to play Sonny, just for the sake of seeing Sonny and Gunner (as played by Affleck) discover one another and consummate a possible guy/guy relationship brewing underneath?
Well, I don't know if I would — Davies is just too unique an actor, and the original story shows an environment so devoid of substance that it would not want to suggest anything that would be gay; For example, sodomy laws in the U.S. were not repealed before 1970's, neither was homosexuality an acceptable topic in the kind of polite society shown in this film. The novel by the same title was published in 1970, which is when attitudes towards homosexuality in the U.S. somehow started to thaw, and then only really slowly.
I think I did notice some lines in the movie from which I could infer that there could have been guy/guy relationships, I think in the very inconspicous way Gunner formed words in his sentences. Oh well.
Yet, in conclusion, "Going All the Way" did suggest possible ways of how the Beat Generation sprung up.
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)