Sorry for the lateness. Busy weekend.
Comment your answers, and in about a week I'll put up all the results. And if you don't answer, I'll just have to answer for you, and you won't be able to complain about who you are.
Oh, and I'm not going to tell you which show I've picked until after you've answered.
Note: When answering the questions, don't pick your favorite of the possible answers, pick what best suits you. And if there's two that are equally true, you can pick more than one answer for each question. Just don't do it often, because it makes work for me. Also, if you don't know all of the options, just go with your gut. It's not necessary to research the answers.
1. If you were a former teen pop star, you'd be...
a) Tiffany
b) Alanis Morissette
c) Donnie Wahlberg
d) Isaac Hanson
e) Brandy
2. If you were a hotel, you'd be a...
a) bed & breakfast
b) boutique hotel
c) single room
d) five-star resort
e) youth hostel
3. If you were a puzzle, you'd be...
a) crossword
b) jigsaw
c) Sukoku
d) Jumble
e) maze
4. If you were a vowel, you'd be...
a) A
b) E
c) I
d) O
e) U
5. If you were a Judy Blume book, you'd be...
a) Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret
b) Tales of A Fourth Grade Nothing
c) Superfudge
d) Otherwise Known As Shelia the Great
e) Forever
6. If you were a shade of red, you'd be...
a) crimson
b) magenta
c) mauve
d) scarlet
e) cardinal
7. If you were a track and field event, you'd be...
a) high jump
b) shot put
c) javelin
d) relay
e) hurdle
8. If you were a phobia, you'd be...
a) acrophobia (heights)
b) agoraphobia (public places)
c) coulrophobia (clowns)
d) arachnophobia (spiders)
e) claustrophobia (small spaces)
9. If you were something from which to drink, you'd be...
a) thermos
b) chalice
c) coffee mug
d) water bottle
e) wine glass
10. If you were a section of the newspaper, you'd be...
a) front page
b) science/ technology
c) travel
d) sports
e) letters to the editor
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Wordplay
There's so much that is amazing in HP that it's hard to hit all of the supa-cool things, but I've always admired the naming conventions of JK. In 5 out of 7 books, the big mystery of the book revolves around the book title, and even in the two where the meaning of the title is revealed early in the book, in on there are still mysteries that involve the object in the title. And the one that who's title doesn't involve mystery is my favorite book, so I don't really care. In fact, it might be the lack of driving mystery that helps it to be my favorite.
Usually in the books, Rowling takes something that we're familiar with and can understand and make guesses. This last one was different for me, though. I couldn't quite grasp the "deathly" part of the title because we don't really use that word much on this side of the pond (I'm not really sure if they do on the other side, honestly). Nor, really, do we use the word "hallow."
While I now understand the use of "hallow," I'm still not sure about "deathly." Could somebody please explain it to me? (In email, not here, since this is a spoiler-free zone). In fact, more to come later on how much I hate spoilers.
Usually in the books, Rowling takes something that we're familiar with and can understand and make guesses. This last one was different for me, though. I couldn't quite grasp the "deathly" part of the title because we don't really use that word much on this side of the pond (I'm not really sure if they do on the other side, honestly). Nor, really, do we use the word "hallow."
While I now understand the use of "hallow," I'm still not sure about "deathly." Could somebody please explain it to me? (In email, not here, since this is a spoiler-free zone). In fact, more to come later on how much I hate spoilers.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Oh those summer nights
I love summer nights. The first thing I love about them is that they happen so late. As a kid I loved being able to play outside until 8:00, and even today I love that I can be outside to late. Plus, there's something about dusk that appeals to me. While the essentially look the same as sunrises, sunsets are just better to me. Perhaps that is because they don't occur at a time that all sane people are asleep. I do have plenty of experience with sunrises, however, since when I worked at Bolthouse I would usually have to drive into them. And I much prefer sunsets.
Usually in Bakersfield, our sunsets are huge things. They're almost always colorful, thanks to all the crap in the atmosphere. When I was up in Spokane, they would have half the color that we have in Bakersfield and think it was an amazing sunset. I had to disagree. Most evenings, there is color all across the horizon, from the horizon line to about 60 degrees above it. But tonight was different.
I don't know if it was because I was out at a later time (I don't think so), or because the rain wiped away most of the pollution, but tonight's sunset was the way that I like them. Instead of just oranges and reds, there were purples and blues, plus orange. The clouds made for different colors, and patterns in the part of the sky where there were no colors. Plus, since there wasn't as much pollution to diffract all the light. It was more concentrated. Instead of being spread all across the horizon, there was a concentration of orange, but most of it was darker. It felt more like dusk.
Of course, I'm not doing a good job of describing it, but it was pretty cool. It was a much better end to the day than I started, since I had to call a plumber (who then had to rip out a part of the downstairs ceiling) and later my car wouldn't start. At least the week can't get much worse (I really hope).
Usually in Bakersfield, our sunsets are huge things. They're almost always colorful, thanks to all the crap in the atmosphere. When I was up in Spokane, they would have half the color that we have in Bakersfield and think it was an amazing sunset. I had to disagree. Most evenings, there is color all across the horizon, from the horizon line to about 60 degrees above it. But tonight was different.
I don't know if it was because I was out at a later time (I don't think so), or because the rain wiped away most of the pollution, but tonight's sunset was the way that I like them. Instead of just oranges and reds, there were purples and blues, plus orange. The clouds made for different colors, and patterns in the part of the sky where there were no colors. Plus, since there wasn't as much pollution to diffract all the light. It was more concentrated. Instead of being spread all across the horizon, there was a concentration of orange, but most of it was darker. It felt more like dusk.
Of course, I'm not doing a good job of describing it, but it was pretty cool. It was a much better end to the day than I started, since I had to call a plumber (who then had to rip out a part of the downstairs ceiling) and later my car wouldn't start. At least the week can't get much worse (I really hope).
I'm being arrested for being a plumber.
I was told recently that the picture in my profile was of Zombie Becca, so I've decided to change it. Unfortunately, I don't have many pictures of myself, so I had to search for this one. It's either at Zion or Yellowstone (Zion I think), and there's a baby waterfall behind me, which you can't see at blogger's poor size and resolution. Oh well.
I found my first season of GG (someone (I'm not saying who) had stolen it and decided to not tell me), and it's good to know I didn't just misplace it.
Now I must go because we have an exploded (hopefully I'm just exaggerating) pipe someplace upstairs and the plumber is here.
PS If you know what movie the title is from, you need to watch better movies.
I found my first season of GG (someone (I'm not saying who) had stolen it and decided to not tell me), and it's good to know I didn't just misplace it.
Now I must go because we have an exploded (hopefully I'm just exaggerating) pipe someplace upstairs and the plumber is here.
PS If you know what movie the title is from, you need to watch better movies.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Harry Potter must not go to Hogwarts.
The end is here. Oh sure, we have two more movies coming, probably over the next four years, but the surprise and suspense will soon be over. The anxious anticipating of millions of people around the world will never quite be like this again. Sure, they'll all look forward to the movies, and the, dare I say, magic, will be gone. And I will surely miss it.
On a worldwide scale, I don't think there has been anything that even resembles Harry potter in terms of literature (or really, anything). Sure, there have been books that have exploded, but because of the times, the shrinking of the world, and honestly, movie technology, Harry Potter far exceeds them in sheer awesomeness. Magazines and people keep asking, "What will be the next Harry Potter?", and I'm sure many new series will be hailed as it over the next years, but it's a lie. There will never be another Harry Potter.
Personally, I've read a lot of books, especially fantasy, and particularly serial fantasy. And while I have been excited for each new release in a series (more excited for some than others), never has the whole world been excited with me. And while a few friends have enjoyed the same books that I have (yay them!), never have almost every one of my friends been waiting for that release date along with me.
It really pissed me off in the early days of HP when people would dismiss HP because it's children's literature. Unfortunately a lot of people probably still think this. These are the same people that dismiss The Chronicles of Narnia as children's literature. They are children's books, but they are also so much more. I challenge anybody to find a more complex, ambigious, love/hatable, and discussable character anywhere than Snape. (Irina Derevko in "Alias" comes close). He alone takes the series out of the "dismissable" genre of children's books into something entirely different (I say "dismissable" because some of my favorite books are considered children's literature and I don't dismiss it at all). But if you think that he is the only thing adult about the series, then I get to punch you.
I don't know if Rowling purposely matured the style of the books as Harry matures (probably not), but that's what has happened. The entire series is seen through Harry's (admitedly questionable) eyesight, and as he matures, so does how he (and we) see his world. The first book is much like The Hobbit in that it's all about goofiness, a new magical world, interesting people, and solving puzzles. The second book is much of the same, although Rowling is preparing us for the dark turn that will happen in the next book with a handful of characters almost dying.
One the second book ends, however, the real series begins. For the first time (at least for me) we feel as if Harry is actually in danger. There's a sense of foreboding in the book that hasn't been present in the first two, and it's just plain dark. This is not the style of your typical children's book. Then the fourth book comes along which draws and shapes the anticipation of something bad happening until it actually does.
The fifth book is my favorite book because there's a dark comedy hiding underneath it's children's exterior. Most people just see the dark, with Harry whining and complaining his way through most of the book, but Rowling decides to make it a dark comedy by exaggerating Umbridges hatability and pitting her against Fred and George. This is no longer children's literature, but literature which prominately features children in it.
The sixth book is no longer really about children, as Harry has matured beyond his years, and Ron and Hermionie are almost ignored, or only put in for comic effect. The story is really about Harry, Snape (as the Half Blood Prince and himself), and Dumbledore, with a bit of Tom Riddle thrown in for flavoring. Sure, there's childish drama about snogging, jealousy, and other run of the mill teenage problems, but that's not the heart of the book, it's just thrown in because it's funny.
All this to say that I'm going to miss waiting for the next Harry Potter book to come out, and I'm going to miss guessing how the characters are going to react. I know I'll be re-reading these books for years to come, and probably talking about them to whomever will listen, but the mystery, the potential, the fear of the next bad thing to happen to Harry will be gone. Instead, it will just take its rightful place next to the Lord of the Rings, the Chronicles of Narnia, and the Belgariad. And actually, as much as it pains me to say it, depending on this last book, it might surpass those. We'll see tomorrow.
On a worldwide scale, I don't think there has been anything that even resembles Harry potter in terms of literature (or really, anything). Sure, there have been books that have exploded, but because of the times, the shrinking of the world, and honestly, movie technology, Harry Potter far exceeds them in sheer awesomeness. Magazines and people keep asking, "What will be the next Harry Potter?", and I'm sure many new series will be hailed as it over the next years, but it's a lie. There will never be another Harry Potter.
Personally, I've read a lot of books, especially fantasy, and particularly serial fantasy. And while I have been excited for each new release in a series (more excited for some than others), never has the whole world been excited with me. And while a few friends have enjoyed the same books that I have (yay them!), never have almost every one of my friends been waiting for that release date along with me.
It really pissed me off in the early days of HP when people would dismiss HP because it's children's literature. Unfortunately a lot of people probably still think this. These are the same people that dismiss The Chronicles of Narnia as children's literature. They are children's books, but they are also so much more. I challenge anybody to find a more complex, ambigious, love/hatable, and discussable character anywhere than Snape. (Irina Derevko in "Alias" comes close). He alone takes the series out of the "dismissable" genre of children's books into something entirely different (I say "dismissable" because some of my favorite books are considered children's literature and I don't dismiss it at all). But if you think that he is the only thing adult about the series, then I get to punch you.
I don't know if Rowling purposely matured the style of the books as Harry matures (probably not), but that's what has happened. The entire series is seen through Harry's (admitedly questionable) eyesight, and as he matures, so does how he (and we) see his world. The first book is much like The Hobbit in that it's all about goofiness, a new magical world, interesting people, and solving puzzles. The second book is much of the same, although Rowling is preparing us for the dark turn that will happen in the next book with a handful of characters almost dying.
One the second book ends, however, the real series begins. For the first time (at least for me) we feel as if Harry is actually in danger. There's a sense of foreboding in the book that hasn't been present in the first two, and it's just plain dark. This is not the style of your typical children's book. Then the fourth book comes along which draws and shapes the anticipation of something bad happening until it actually does.
The fifth book is my favorite book because there's a dark comedy hiding underneath it's children's exterior. Most people just see the dark, with Harry whining and complaining his way through most of the book, but Rowling decides to make it a dark comedy by exaggerating Umbridges hatability and pitting her against Fred and George. This is no longer children's literature, but literature which prominately features children in it.
The sixth book is no longer really about children, as Harry has matured beyond his years, and Ron and Hermionie are almost ignored, or only put in for comic effect. The story is really about Harry, Snape (as the Half Blood Prince and himself), and Dumbledore, with a bit of Tom Riddle thrown in for flavoring. Sure, there's childish drama about snogging, jealousy, and other run of the mill teenage problems, but that's not the heart of the book, it's just thrown in because it's funny.
All this to say that I'm going to miss waiting for the next Harry Potter book to come out, and I'm going to miss guessing how the characters are going to react. I know I'll be re-reading these books for years to come, and probably talking about them to whomever will listen, but the mystery, the potential, the fear of the next bad thing to happen to Harry will be gone. Instead, it will just take its rightful place next to the Lord of the Rings, the Chronicles of Narnia, and the Belgariad. And actually, as much as it pains me to say it, depending on this last book, it might surpass those. We'll see tomorrow.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
He's snarkastic
Does anybody out there have my first season of Gilmore Girls? I seem to be missing it.
On an unrelated note, I love Finding Neverland. One of my favorite recent movies, right alongside Eternal Sunshine.
On an unrelated note, I love Finding Neverland. One of my favorite recent movies, right alongside Eternal Sunshine.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Mister F
Well, it's been a bit delayed due to a visit down to LA, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (book and movie), Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, and 9 glorious hours of goblin and orc slaying, but here are the latest results for the online quizzes!
As I hoped you guess from the title, I finally choose "Arrested Development" as the subject of the quiz.
"This series takes on the interpersonal relationships and dynamics surrounding the always dysfunctional Bluths following the arrest of the family patriarch.
Michael: Traditional and idealistic, you're the kind of person who gets more out of doing things for others rather than yourself. Though you're a natural leader and take pride in being a self-starter, you also have a bit of an edge, no doubt from putting up with your family so long.
Gob: You're a loose cannon - a spoiled and demented con artist whose idea of a good time often crosses the line from playfulness into bullying. Your own best audience, you have a gift for standing out in the crowd, thought it might be because your act is so cheesy.
Buster: Sheltered and repressed, you're a simpleminded wallflower, a creature of habit who's constitutionally averse to change and would rather hide in his room. So what if you're out of touch? Maybe if more people never left the house, the world would be a less frightening place.
Lindsay: You're the definition of a hopeless romantic, on who, considering how fashionable you are, is as bad at getting a date as you are at keeping one. Constantly getting in your own way, you end up sabotaging yourself at every turn, though you always look good doing it.
Tobias: Quirky, compulsive, and more than a little conflicted, you have a natural talent for self-deception. Pretentious and performance-oriented, you think you have it all figured out, though your endless and tiresome journey of self-discovery may yet turn up the real you in the end.
Lucille: You're a cruel one - a haughty, ruthless sort who takes pleasure in making others uncomfortable. Acerbic and blindsiding, you demand that people indulge your most delusional requests. You lack a single nurturing bone in your body. To say you're old-fashioned is to insult the elderly.
Becca - Michael, Buster (3); Lindsay (0)
Carly - Lindsay (4); Michael, Lucille (0)
Chris - Tobias (4); Michael, Lindsay (0)
Jessica - Lindsay, Tobias (3); Gob (0)
Robert - Michael, Buster (3); Gob (0)
This was the first time that everybody had a character with zero answers. Also, for an alternative description of these characters, check this out. (For those of you who haven't seen it already).
As I hoped you guess from the title, I finally choose "Arrested Development" as the subject of the quiz.
"This series takes on the interpersonal relationships and dynamics surrounding the always dysfunctional Bluths following the arrest of the family patriarch.
Michael: Traditional and idealistic, you're the kind of person who gets more out of doing things for others rather than yourself. Though you're a natural leader and take pride in being a self-starter, you also have a bit of an edge, no doubt from putting up with your family so long.
Gob: You're a loose cannon - a spoiled and demented con artist whose idea of a good time often crosses the line from playfulness into bullying. Your own best audience, you have a gift for standing out in the crowd, thought it might be because your act is so cheesy.
Buster: Sheltered and repressed, you're a simpleminded wallflower, a creature of habit who's constitutionally averse to change and would rather hide in his room. So what if you're out of touch? Maybe if more people never left the house, the world would be a less frightening place.
Lindsay: You're the definition of a hopeless romantic, on who, considering how fashionable you are, is as bad at getting a date as you are at keeping one. Constantly getting in your own way, you end up sabotaging yourself at every turn, though you always look good doing it.
Tobias: Quirky, compulsive, and more than a little conflicted, you have a natural talent for self-deception. Pretentious and performance-oriented, you think you have it all figured out, though your endless and tiresome journey of self-discovery may yet turn up the real you in the end.
Lucille: You're a cruel one - a haughty, ruthless sort who takes pleasure in making others uncomfortable. Acerbic and blindsiding, you demand that people indulge your most delusional requests. You lack a single nurturing bone in your body. To say you're old-fashioned is to insult the elderly.
Becca - Michael, Buster (3); Lindsay (0)
Carly - Lindsay (4); Michael, Lucille (0)
Chris - Tobias (4); Michael, Lindsay (0)
Jessica - Lindsay, Tobias (3); Gob (0)
Robert - Michael, Buster (3); Gob (0)
This was the first time that everybody had a character with zero answers. Also, for an alternative description of these characters, check this out. (For those of you who haven't seen it already).
Sunday, July 15, 2007
We didn't need voices; we had faces.
One of the things I love about watching older movies is that I can compare today's society with yesterday's societies. This can occasionally be done by creating a period piece, like the recent Pride and Prejudice, or biopics, but I really enjoy watching an old comedy or drama and comparing how different movies are today.
In particular, lately I've seen two "battle of the sexes" comedies from different eras, each made by the famous match-up of their respective decades. "Pat and Mike" is from 1952 and is a Tracy/Hepburn movie. "Lover Come Back" is from 1961 and is a Hudson/Day movie. I'm not going to go into specifics of how each movie differs from the other and everything, but people often wonder why I like old movies so much, and this is one of the main reasons, and I think it's most obvious in romantic comedyish movies.
Of course, it's also fun to watch movies that feature families and see how different that life is from now (recent example: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"), but a lot of times, movie families aren't typical, because if they were, they wouldn't be real interesting.
In particular, lately I've seen two "battle of the sexes" comedies from different eras, each made by the famous match-up of their respective decades. "Pat and Mike" is from 1952 and is a Tracy/Hepburn movie. "Lover Come Back" is from 1961 and is a Hudson/Day movie. I'm not going to go into specifics of how each movie differs from the other and everything, but people often wonder why I like old movies so much, and this is one of the main reasons, and I think it's most obvious in romantic comedyish movies.
Of course, it's also fun to watch movies that feature families and see how different that life is from now (recent example: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"), but a lot of times, movie families aren't typical, because if they were, they wouldn't be real interesting.
Friday, July 13, 2007
I think you can in Europe.
There's a lot of things I like about languages. In general, the fascinate me. I especially like seeing how language changes and evolves over the centuries (I actually enjoyed HOTEL in Adams' class freshman year). But sometimes I just don't understand it, or rather, I don't understand the relationships between some compound words.
I was thinking the other night of the words inflate and deflate. Now, the root of these is flate (but we don't have the word in the English language, I check Wiktionary). Of course, it's a Latin root (meaning to breathe or blow), and the prefixes in- and de- have been added to the root, in- meaning into, and de- meaning to reversal or undoing. But it strikes me that these prefixes aren't opposites, and therefore the word deflate shouldn't be the antonym to inflate. Seems like exflate or unflate would better choices, or even deinflate if we're going to be technical.
But of course languages aren't technical, and this is doubly true of English (I blame the French, damn Normans). We don't normally have double prefix words, even though they would make sense. There are some, like antidisestablish, deconstruct (reconstruct, too), and some others that I can't think of right now, but generally if we want to show the opposite of some Latin derived word, we just switch prefixes, which really, we shouldn't do.
Don't even get my started on why we use certain Latin roots with prefixes, but not without. Like flate, and whelm (actually, I just looked and whelm is an English word, meaning to cover with water. And somehow from that we got our current usage of under- and overwhelm).
I was thinking the other night of the words inflate and deflate. Now, the root of these is flate (but we don't have the word in the English language, I check Wiktionary). Of course, it's a Latin root (meaning to breathe or blow), and the prefixes in- and de- have been added to the root, in- meaning into, and de- meaning to reversal or undoing. But it strikes me that these prefixes aren't opposites, and therefore the word deflate shouldn't be the antonym to inflate. Seems like exflate or unflate would better choices, or even deinflate if we're going to be technical.
But of course languages aren't technical, and this is doubly true of English (I blame the French, damn Normans). We don't normally have double prefix words, even though they would make sense. There are some, like antidisestablish, deconstruct (reconstruct, too), and some others that I can't think of right now, but generally if we want to show the opposite of some Latin derived word, we just switch prefixes, which really, we shouldn't do.
Don't even get my started on why we use certain Latin roots with prefixes, but not without. Like flate, and whelm (actually, I just looked and whelm is an English word, meaning to cover with water. And somehow from that we got our current usage of under- and overwhelm).
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The Searchers
I've never been a big fan of westerns. I like the idea of westerns, and have loved to see it's metamorphosis into the space western, but the westerns that were made around the 1950s, well I've just never had a big appreciate for them.
Of course, there are exceptions, like "High Noon" and "The Magnificent Seven," but if we're talking about the traditional Cowboys vs. Indians western, I'll pass. I must admit that I haven't seen some of the big name westerns like "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" and "Shane," but in general I don't see the point of a movie where your homestead or outpost gets attacked by Indians, so you must go out and hunt them down and kill them for vengeance. It just seems like it would get old. All the ones with that plot line that I've seen have no character development (or very little if you're being generous), and very little in the way of interesting conversation. I just don't see the point in watching a movie if those things are lacking.
A great surprise was "The Searchers," which has exactly the plot outline above (homestead gets attacked, everybody is killed except the youngest daughter, so they go on a endless quest to rescue her), but does it amidst one of the most beautifully filmed movies I have ever seen. What puts this movie over the top, however, is that the hero is actually interesting. John Wayne plays a guy that I would despise normally, but you still find yourself rooting for him, and in the end when he redeems himself, you're glad to see it, even though you know he hasn't changed, not really.
There's a reason John Ford is the king of the western, and I think "The Searchers" is it. I love Ford for doing "The Quiet Man," but I think I respect him even more now that I've seen "The Searchers" (oh, and this little film called "The Grapes of Wrath," too).
Of course, there are exceptions, like "High Noon" and "The Magnificent Seven," but if we're talking about the traditional Cowboys vs. Indians western, I'll pass. I must admit that I haven't seen some of the big name westerns like "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" and "Shane," but in general I don't see the point of a movie where your homestead or outpost gets attacked by Indians, so you must go out and hunt them down and kill them for vengeance. It just seems like it would get old. All the ones with that plot line that I've seen have no character development (or very little if you're being generous), and very little in the way of interesting conversation. I just don't see the point in watching a movie if those things are lacking.
A great surprise was "The Searchers," which has exactly the plot outline above (homestead gets attacked, everybody is killed except the youngest daughter, so they go on a endless quest to rescue her), but does it amidst one of the most beautifully filmed movies I have ever seen. What puts this movie over the top, however, is that the hero is actually interesting. John Wayne plays a guy that I would despise normally, but you still find yourself rooting for him, and in the end when he redeems himself, you're glad to see it, even though you know he hasn't changed, not really.
There's a reason John Ford is the king of the western, and I think "The Searchers" is it. I love Ford for doing "The Quiet Man," but I think I respect him even more now that I've seen "The Searchers" (oh, and this little film called "The Grapes of Wrath," too).
Sunday, July 08, 2007
The circle is now complete
I used to pretend and tell myself that I wasn't a complete nerd. There were a couple of nerdy activities of which I didn't take part. Reading comics and playing D&D were two examples of these. Now, granted, these are more activities from the 70's and 80's than today, but are still fairly prevalent in nerd culture today. (Although growing up I thought comics were the realm of the "dumb idiots" since there were very few words and large pictures. Television and movies have since told me otherwise).
But I've fallen into the swirling vortex that is DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, Vertigo, and dozens of other comic publisher - I've gotten trapped by the plastic covers and mesmerized the by glossy covers.
I thought that I could avoid this pitfall by sticking with graphic novels. After all, those aren't really comic books; they're not released in serial, and they have a beginning and an end, unlike most superhero comics. Even if I couldn't stay away from comics, I could at least avoid recent comics, and concentrate instead on older ones that have been compiled into books. That way I could feel superior by calling them "graphic novels," and more importantly, I wouldn't be stuck waiting a month for my next one to continue the story.
But Joss Whedon had to go and screw things up, the jerk! He had to start writing a Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic that continues from where the show left off. The comics are even labeled "Season 8, # 1" instead of as issues, which even gives hope for seasons 9 and so forth. You might be thinking that these can't be good, but Joss has done a lot of comic writing previously, and the comics portray the tone of the television show very well.
I know this because I now have all four, and am anxiously waiting for the next one to come out in August. Not only that, but I've discovered that Serenity also has a comic series, and I'm going to have to buy that now. I guess I'll just have to embrace my nerdiness from now on, instead of kidding myself.
But I've fallen into the swirling vortex that is DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, Vertigo, and dozens of other comic publisher - I've gotten trapped by the plastic covers and mesmerized the by glossy covers.
I thought that I could avoid this pitfall by sticking with graphic novels. After all, those aren't really comic books; they're not released in serial, and they have a beginning and an end, unlike most superhero comics. Even if I couldn't stay away from comics, I could at least avoid recent comics, and concentrate instead on older ones that have been compiled into books. That way I could feel superior by calling them "graphic novels," and more importantly, I wouldn't be stuck waiting a month for my next one to continue the story.
But Joss Whedon had to go and screw things up, the jerk! He had to start writing a Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic that continues from where the show left off. The comics are even labeled "Season 8, # 1" instead of as issues, which even gives hope for seasons 9 and so forth. You might be thinking that these can't be good, but Joss has done a lot of comic writing previously, and the comics portray the tone of the television show very well.
I know this because I now have all four, and am anxiously waiting for the next one to come out in August. Not only that, but I've discovered that Serenity also has a comic series, and I'm going to have to buy that now. I guess I'll just have to embrace my nerdiness from now on, instead of kidding myself.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Quiz Show
It's that time again! Time for another fun quiz!
Comment your answers, and in about a week I'll put up all the results. And if you don't answer, I'll just have to answer for you, and you won't be able to complain about who you are.
Oh, and I'm not going to tell you which show I've picked until after you've answered.
Note: When answering the questions, don't pick your favorite of the possible answers, pick what best suits you. And if there's two that are equally true, you can pick more than one answer for each question. Just don't do it often, because it makes work for me. Also, if you don't know all of the options, just go with your gut. It's not necessary to research the answers.
1. If you were a hit by a one-hit wonder, you'd be...
a) "Mickey"
b) "Take on Me"
c) "Who Let the Dogs Out"
d) "Bette Davis Eyes"
e) "Sister Christian"
f) "99 Luftballons"
2. If you were a card game, you'd be...
a) bridge
b) war
c) solitaire
d) go fish
e) hearts
f) euchre
3. If you were a brand of soap, you'd be...
a) Ivory
b) Dial Antibacterial
c) Calgon
d) Lifebouy
e) Irish Spring
f) Neutrogena
4. If you were a famous family, you'd be...
a) the Kennedys
b) the Jacksons
c) the Rockefellers
d) the Vanderbilts
e) the Osbournes
f) the Partridge Family
5. If you were a magic trick, you'd be...
a) "Pick a card, any card."
b) saw the assistant in half
c) rabbit out of a hat
d) vanishing act
e) escaping from chains
f) never-ending scarf from sleeve
6. if you were a vegetable, you'd be....
a) eggplant
b) spinach
c) clerey
d) iceberg lettuce
e) radish
f) cauliflower
7. If you were a Robin Williams movie, you'd be...
a) Club Paradise
b) Mrs. Doubtfire
c) Hook
d) Jumanji
e) Deconstructing Harry
f) The World According to Garp
8. If you were a football penalty, you'd be...
a) false start
b) pass interference
c) delay of game
d) holding
e) roughing the kicker
f) clipping
9. If you were a type of house, you'd be...
a) ranch
b) Colonial
c) Victorian
d) Tudor
e) split-level
f) modern
10. If you were a cheese, you'd be...
a) American
b) Swiss
c) sharp cheddar
d) Brie
e) Monterey Jack
f) Velveeta
Comment your answers, and in about a week I'll put up all the results. And if you don't answer, I'll just have to answer for you, and you won't be able to complain about who you are.
Oh, and I'm not going to tell you which show I've picked until after you've answered.
Note: When answering the questions, don't pick your favorite of the possible answers, pick what best suits you. And if there's two that are equally true, you can pick more than one answer for each question. Just don't do it often, because it makes work for me. Also, if you don't know all of the options, just go with your gut. It's not necessary to research the answers.
1. If you were a hit by a one-hit wonder, you'd be...
a) "Mickey"
b) "Take on Me"
c) "Who Let the Dogs Out"
d) "Bette Davis Eyes"
e) "Sister Christian"
f) "99 Luftballons"
2. If you were a card game, you'd be...
a) bridge
b) war
c) solitaire
d) go fish
e) hearts
f) euchre
3. If you were a brand of soap, you'd be...
a) Ivory
b) Dial Antibacterial
c) Calgon
d) Lifebouy
e) Irish Spring
f) Neutrogena
4. If you were a famous family, you'd be...
a) the Kennedys
b) the Jacksons
c) the Rockefellers
d) the Vanderbilts
e) the Osbournes
f) the Partridge Family
5. If you were a magic trick, you'd be...
a) "Pick a card, any card."
b) saw the assistant in half
c) rabbit out of a hat
d) vanishing act
e) escaping from chains
f) never-ending scarf from sleeve
6. if you were a vegetable, you'd be....
a) eggplant
b) spinach
c) clerey
d) iceberg lettuce
e) radish
f) cauliflower
7. If you were a Robin Williams movie, you'd be...
a) Club Paradise
b) Mrs. Doubtfire
c) Hook
d) Jumanji
e) Deconstructing Harry
f) The World According to Garp
8. If you were a football penalty, you'd be...
a) false start
b) pass interference
c) delay of game
d) holding
e) roughing the kicker
f) clipping
9. If you were a type of house, you'd be...
a) ranch
b) Colonial
c) Victorian
d) Tudor
e) split-level
f) modern
10. If you were a cheese, you'd be...
a) American
b) Swiss
c) sharp cheddar
d) Brie
e) Monterey Jack
f) Velveeta
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Wow, I almost didn't realize that it was time for a new show. Thankfully, Chris updated his site with his music of the month (good band, check them out), which reminded me.
I decided to go back to a solid favorite for a couple of reasons. The first is that none of my friends have ever really watched Buffy, and it's a fairly important series. Not just important, but also good. It artfully combines horror, science fiction, sarcasm, and even a little bit of drama in a way that hasn't been done, well, ever. The second is that Jessica told me about this, which is very exciting, and I have to go to it.
There are a lot of reasons that Buffy is important, even beyond the fact that it's great television. Joss Whedon has gone on to do more great things (can anyone say "Firefly?"), a large number of the writers have gone on to either create or write for other great shows. Another huge thing Buffy brought us was the idea of a self-contained season, meaning that each season has a plot and conclusion, and while they all tie together, each one can exist on their own.
But Buffy also paved the way for shows like Alias and Veronica Mars (and a handful of other shows that I don't watch), in that Buffy had a strong central female character. This really hadn't been done before Buffy. It also showed that supernatural and occult ideas and concepts wouldn't flop on television, and we've since had far too many shows go from there for me to list.
I own Seasons 1, 3, 6, and 7, which are the four best and most important seasons in the series. Four and Five I try to pretend don't exist. Here's a breakdown of each season (with a few spoilers, so beware).
Season 1: There's a new slayer in town, and her name is.... Buffy? While the name sounds like she should be a cheerleader, Buffy soon tells the demons of Sunnydale that there's a new sheriff in town. Has one of the best evil demons of the show, The Master (even if the name wasn't original, he's still pretty cool).
Season 2: Lame because it focuses on the Buffy-Angel romance, which I never really cared for. Angel wasn't my favorite character, and I can't say I was disappointed when he died (great ending for the season, though).
Season 3: Has the introduction of a new slayer (Faith) for Buffy to compete with. Also has The Mayor, who's the big bad for the season, and is a great character. Buffy manages to graduate from high school, and promptly blows the place up. Go her.
Season 4: Buffy goes to college and meets Riley (one of the few good things in the season - the actor, not the character). There's a new team trying to play the game, but Buffy soon shows them who's boss.
Season 5: Buffy has a new little sister, and she's a teenager? Um, okay. We'll just try to forget that this one exists as Buffy has to battle a goddess who, in her free time, is a male hospital intern. Riiiight.
Season 6: A return to form for the Scooby-team. Buffy is brought back to life by some bad-ass magic, and Willow turns evil. Also has the best trio of villains ever, who are complete nerds, and allow Joss to input all the geek-pop culture references he could want. (The van that they use as a mobile headquarter plays the Imperial March as it's horn). Of course, one of the main characters bites the bullet, and Willow goes mental and fillets a guy. Which is pretty sweet.
Season 7: The final season, and the show goes out with a bang. The Watchers (stupid British pricks) are blown up (woohoo!) and Buffy has to bring all sorts of would-be slayers under her wing in Sunnydale. Cue Caleb (Nathan Fillion, my hero), "The Preacher," who takes his cue from Robert Mitchum in "The Night of the Hunter" and is incredibly creepy, and it's a quality season. One of the best, in fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
