Well not as though the blog is going anywhere. Rather I myself am moving.
Frankly it could not come at a better time for me.
I'd been trapped in my job for some time. Indeed my relationship with the team I worked on and with can be best described as the one between Strega Nona and Big Anthony, with me sadly being the latter. Being able to suggest improvements based on my observations was off-limits. It seemed as though everything else I did was being directed by the team, and that they seemed to enjoy reminding me that they felt they could do my job anytime they wanted to, but that they didn't because they hated doing it.
Almost like taking out the garbage or picking up shit.
Well now they'll get their chance get their hands dirty and to be shit-pickers :).
Also, I've grown weary of this area. I've always felt it was a nice place to visit, but that the Seattle area was a better fit for me, my family, and our collective future.
As for me, it's on to a different environment and different work culture. One thing I'm looking forward to is working on a team where what I do is valued and respected not just by my boss, but by the organization overall. And that achieving my goals (i.e. being successful) not only helps the product or service I'm working on, but opens up avenues for success as well.
So expect that I'll be offline for the next few days.
2010-08-31
2010-08-27
What is more terrifying?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/this-is-the-hottest-year_b_696704.html
The only thing more terrifying to me than this spot-on analysis, is the sheer amount of stupidity in the comments of those who continue to deny that global warming exists.
The only thing more terrifying to me than this spot-on analysis, is the sheer amount of stupidity in the comments of those who continue to deny that global warming exists.
2010-08-26
Star Trek: a fallen franchise.
Just discovered this blog.
I know lots of people who've seen the new Star Trek movie (the one based on The Original Series characters), and raved about how good it is. Yet something about seeing the trailer didn't seem to pass the smell test to me.
I don't want to be one of those people who believe totally in nostagia or that certain things should be set in stone.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought that film from last year sucked.
But to this article, in a nutshell, my thoughts are:
I've always felt the entire franchise lost its way when Gene Roddenberry died. All the series that had his direct influence (TOS, yes even TAS, TOS films, TNG) seem to correlate with the ones I liked. Granted I prefer the earlier TOS films as opposed to the latter ones. And TNG I felt became formulaic after he died.
But I think I like these because Roddenberry had on some level injected a sense of humanity and wonder that I think correlates with the point in this article - the need to explore.
TOS set the standard. TOS was largely about exploring the galaxy while setting the standard for more philosophical and moral perspectives on issues. And it in particular was I think best represented Roddenberry's belief about us as people and how we have much to learn about the universe, and ourselves. TNG went more down that latter route.
Everything that's followed (even the TNG films) has been more like Paramount attempting to emulate past successes in order to milk the franchise for all its worth. That sense of wonder I've found is largely missing in pretty much every Star Trek endeavor that's followed.
Everything that came after his death lacked his vision and touch. It's hard to escape the sense of recycling going on ever since (It's this character's turn to save the ship, or humanity, or the universe, or have a moral dilemma, etc.).
With the Star Trek film from last year - I think it's very indicative of how far the franchise has fallen in that -
1) They had to re-image the TOS characters so much to the point of them and the story being an almost completely new one - why? It would've been easier to simply create new characters, but I suspect that would've bombed. They needed those TOS characters and likeness to keep a portion of the audience.
This film is based on alternate universe. Different actors, different story, different characterizations. Why then, could they not just write a who new story with new characters instead? Or why could they not use TNG or other series instead?
Answer - because it would never sell.
2) Leonard Nimoy's appearance as Spock. Let's face it - Spock has always been and will always be the face of the franchise. That character I think best represents what makes TOS great. That the producers and Paramount included a cameo of him I think, speaks volumes about how desparate they were for the film to be a success.
Yeah it was a big hit though much of that I think was hype. Those have never been compelling reasons for me to ever watch a movie.
And frankly I don't find anything Abrams has done very interesting. I'm not interested in Abrams and his Alias/Lost style. One show glorified the CIA, the other had Naveen Andrews (i.e. both are crap). Too emasculated, like all sci-fi/drama shows today (like Battlestar Galactica, CSI, etc). Which goes against the grain of what TOS was (partially because it was based in the 1960's, and the conservatism of network television back then).
And let's be fair: it's not that TOS was be any means perfect. Frankly I could've lived peacefully without all the campiness of the second season, and all those episodes with the forced laugh ending.
But I think this film and the incessant hype surrounding it demonstrated that Paramount simply has no new ideas. Nothing that they've produced under the guise of 'Star Trek' where Gene Roddenberry didn't have a hand has proven to have any long-lasting success. Paramount has no original ideas left for Star Trek. There are no creative minds able to create new characters, new issues, or new stories. So the recycle past glories in hopes of repeating success. Paramount has nothing worthwhile to sell.
On the other hand ..
I've not much faith in some of the fan-based series either. I caught a couple of episodes of Star Trek Phase II fan-series, and while I admire their thoughts and the magnitude they've gone to recreate the sets, I've found the stories and acting to be unwatchable. The acting in particular has been terrible.
I really don't know where the series can go.
Maybe there's a point in there somewhere. Perhaps Star Trek itself is something that served a purpose for the latter third of the 20th Century, and now it's time to move on to other forms of entertainment?
Who knows ...
I know lots of people who've seen the new Star Trek movie (the one based on The Original Series characters), and raved about how good it is. Yet something about seeing the trailer didn't seem to pass the smell test to me.
I don't want to be one of those people who believe totally in nostagia or that certain things should be set in stone.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought that film from last year sucked.
But to this article, in a nutshell, my thoughts are:
I've always felt the entire franchise lost its way when Gene Roddenberry died. All the series that had his direct influence (TOS, yes even TAS, TOS films, TNG) seem to correlate with the ones I liked. Granted I prefer the earlier TOS films as opposed to the latter ones. And TNG I felt became formulaic after he died.
But I think I like these because Roddenberry had on some level injected a sense of humanity and wonder that I think correlates with the point in this article - the need to explore.
TOS set the standard. TOS was largely about exploring the galaxy while setting the standard for more philosophical and moral perspectives on issues. And it in particular was I think best represented Roddenberry's belief about us as people and how we have much to learn about the universe, and ourselves. TNG went more down that latter route.
Everything that's followed (even the TNG films) has been more like Paramount attempting to emulate past successes in order to milk the franchise for all its worth. That sense of wonder I've found is largely missing in pretty much every Star Trek endeavor that's followed.
Everything that came after his death lacked his vision and touch. It's hard to escape the sense of recycling going on ever since (It's this character's turn to save the ship, or humanity, or the universe, or have a moral dilemma, etc.).
With the Star Trek film from last year - I think it's very indicative of how far the franchise has fallen in that -
1) They had to re-image the TOS characters so much to the point of them and the story being an almost completely new one - why? It would've been easier to simply create new characters, but I suspect that would've bombed. They needed those TOS characters and likeness to keep a portion of the audience.
This film is based on alternate universe. Different actors, different story, different characterizations. Why then, could they not just write a who new story with new characters instead? Or why could they not use TNG or other series instead?
Answer - because it would never sell.
2) Leonard Nimoy's appearance as Spock. Let's face it - Spock has always been and will always be the face of the franchise. That character I think best represents what makes TOS great. That the producers and Paramount included a cameo of him I think, speaks volumes about how desparate they were for the film to be a success.
Yeah it was a big hit though much of that I think was hype. Those have never been compelling reasons for me to ever watch a movie.
And frankly I don't find anything Abrams has done very interesting. I'm not interested in Abrams and his Alias/Lost style. One show glorified the CIA, the other had Naveen Andrews (i.e. both are crap). Too emasculated, like all sci-fi/drama shows today (like Battlestar Galactica, CSI, etc). Which goes against the grain of what TOS was (partially because it was based in the 1960's, and the conservatism of network television back then).
And let's be fair: it's not that TOS was be any means perfect. Frankly I could've lived peacefully without all the campiness of the second season, and all those episodes with the forced laugh ending.
But I think this film and the incessant hype surrounding it demonstrated that Paramount simply has no new ideas. Nothing that they've produced under the guise of 'Star Trek' where Gene Roddenberry didn't have a hand has proven to have any long-lasting success. Paramount has no original ideas left for Star Trek. There are no creative minds able to create new characters, new issues, or new stories. So the recycle past glories in hopes of repeating success. Paramount has nothing worthwhile to sell.
On the other hand ..
I've not much faith in some of the fan-based series either. I caught a couple of episodes of Star Trek Phase II fan-series, and while I admire their thoughts and the magnitude they've gone to recreate the sets, I've found the stories and acting to be unwatchable. The acting in particular has been terrible.
I really don't know where the series can go.
Maybe there's a point in there somewhere. Perhaps Star Trek itself is something that served a purpose for the latter third of the 20th Century, and now it's time to move on to other forms of entertainment?
Who knows ...
2010-08-20
Wanna save the Internet from large corporations who don't care about you?
Well, in the US, here's a start.
Read it -
http://www.colorofchange.org/googlefcc/
What I added -
"Please ensure the Internet remains an open and viable platform for people to communicate, to innovate.
This will ensure we as a people can work to address some of the larger global issues facing us all.
This can best be achieved by ensuring a strong viable form of InterNetwork Neutrality is in place so that content providers like media corporations and hardware service providers like telecom corporations do not carve out separate, private routes within the Internet for their own private goals."
Why you should too -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/google-verizon-and-you_b_688093.html
Read it -
http://www.colorofchange.org/googlefcc/
What I added -
"Please ensure the Internet remains an open and viable platform for people to communicate, to innovate.
This will ensure we as a people can work to address some of the larger global issues facing us all.
This can best be achieved by ensuring a strong viable form of InterNetwork Neutrality is in place so that content providers like media corporations and hardware service providers like telecom corporations do not carve out separate, private routes within the Internet for their own private goals."
Why you should too -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/google-verizon-and-you_b_688093.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)