It's been a while since I've updated ya'll on how my writing is going, and I'm sure you've been waiting, wondering--dying to know. Well, wait no more. It's going okay. I'll be honest: I can't seem to write as much these days as I could back before I had a full time job. That's not likely to surprise anyone, I know, but I still wish it were different. These days, what with work, family, Elders Quorum and house chores, I'm pretty booked each day. What time I have left to myself, I'm pretty drained. Not exactly Prime Writing Conditions. I've been getting a half hour in each day, but some days it's been a pretty pitiful half hour.
That changed this morning. I woke up early so that I could get the writing done first, and I was overjoyed with how well it went. The house was quiet, my brain was rested, and I churned out 650 words that I'm pretty pleased with. Hopefully this is a new approach I can stick to--and hopefully it gets the chapters out of me faster.
What am I working on? It's the rebooting of Pawn of the Dead, which was itself a fusion of two other books. I'd call it a revision, but the character isn't even wholly the same, the setting has changed, the villain is different, the magic system is completely overhauled . . . At this point, the only connection between this book and the one it's "based" on is the fact that some of the characters share the same names. (It's like the reverse of the old "only the names have changed" concept.) I'm okay with this, mainly because it means I can continue shopping around Pawn of the Dead, but "revise" it at the same time. This version is zanier, or at least that's what I plan it to be. Sort of like Parker meets some of the whimsy of Buttersby, but with a bit more reality and a lot less alpaca. (That statement only makes sense if you've read all my books to date, but . . . it's the only way I can think of to describe it.)
Every now and then, I've considered giving up writing. Taking a long break from it. But in the end, I write because it's what I enjoy doing. I'm not writing to make thousands of dollars, or to have legions of adoring fans. I'm writing to have fun. As long as I can remember that, it makes everything oh so much more enjoyable.
In any case, that's what I have for now. Hope you all have an enjoyable weekend. Remember--Groundhog Day is coming, so get those decorations out now, and make sure you've written the Groundhog to tell him what you want. :-)
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Movie Review: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Another film review for you today. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was not a movie I expected to really like. I'm not even sure why--I hadn't read any reviews, I hadn't talked to anyone who'd seen it . . . Something about the title just said "this is going to be a stupid movie" to me, so I wasn't eager to watch it. However, I thought TRC would get a kick out of it, so I ordered it on Netflix.
I was very pleasantly surprised.
It tells the story of a young inventor who just isn't that successful at inventing things. Case in point: he invents impervious spray-on shoes, but once they're on you, there's no way to get them off. That sort of stuff. Finally, he comes up with an invention that turns water vapor into food. Thus, you have raining pizza, or a cheeseburger drizzle. Trouble ensues.
The film was very well done. The plot makes sense, the characters have believable arcs, and it has Mr. T in it voicing one of the characters. That's basically the formula for a successful movie right there. In the end, it hits on the "It's OK to be a Nerd" theme a touch too hard, but I forgave it. I'll say that the climax--and how it's resolved--was a wonderful example of how to properly resolve a major plot line in an unexpected--but believable--manner.
Three stars. Maybe three and a half. Strongly recommended for anyone looking for a fun family film.
I was very pleasantly surprised.
It tells the story of a young inventor who just isn't that successful at inventing things. Case in point: he invents impervious spray-on shoes, but once they're on you, there's no way to get them off. That sort of stuff. Finally, he comes up with an invention that turns water vapor into food. Thus, you have raining pizza, or a cheeseburger drizzle. Trouble ensues.
The film was very well done. The plot makes sense, the characters have believable arcs, and it has Mr. T in it voicing one of the characters. That's basically the formula for a successful movie right there. In the end, it hits on the "It's OK to be a Nerd" theme a touch too hard, but I forgave it. I'll say that the climax--and how it's resolved--was a wonderful example of how to properly resolve a major plot line in an unexpected--but believable--manner.
Three stars. Maybe three and a half. Strongly recommended for anyone looking for a fun family film.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The iPad
For those of you who haven't been following tech news lately, Apple announced their Tablet/Slate/Netbook thingy (that's the technical term for it) today--the iPad. Check out the link for a video and full description of the device. It's basically a big iTouch. No camera on it, and no phone, but it comes with a slew of apps and other cool things, all for a starting price of $499(!). What do I think about it? I think I want one--too bad I can't afford it. It has an optional keyboard, great video and games options, internet . . . Lots of cool stuff. It had been overhyped big time before the launch, and so it seems there is some disappointment in tech circles, but I think it's going to do very well. The launch video I was watching had over 100,000 people following it. For a product launch. That's a good sign right there. It'll launch in late March.
What do you all think?
What do you all think?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Book Review: Fire
Fire by Kristin CashoreMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
I really enjoyed this book, although I have to say that the ending was a letdown for me. Cashore had such a good thing going, but then it all started to unravel at the end instead of coming together. Events seemed to pop up and be resolved at random, and other complications appeared out of nowhere. It could have easily been a five star book for me, but . . . you need to nail those endings. Sort of like how no matter what, Lost (the TV show) will be a four out of five star show for me. But if it nails this last season, it'll be a five. If it whimpers, it's still earned its way to a four.
Anyway--for those of you who don't know, Fire is a pseudo-sequel to Cashore's earlier book, Graceling. It follows none of the characters, and ditches the magic system for the most part. Part of me wonders why they called it a sequel at all (apart from marketing reasons), but I'm thinking she might be setting up a third book that'll fuse the two together more. We'll see. This one tells the story of a girl who can read minds and force others to do her will--but she's terrified of doing this, because her father (who also had the talent) used it for evil. Add some romance, a hefty dose of intrigue and war (with few real action scenes, however), and a couple of random side plots, and you have the book.
If the ending had been better, I would have liked it more than Graceling. As it is . . . still a good read.
View all my reviews >>
Monday, January 25, 2010
Old Friends and Dead Mice
I'd say it's almost worth getting out of touch with old friends, just for the feeling you get when you finally get back In Touch with them, but . . . I think I'd still rather stay in touch all along. That said, it is very nice to hear from people you haven't heard from in a while. Thank goodness for Facebook and blogs--I'm so much better at keeping tabs on people than I ever was in the days before them.
And in an update on my mouse situation, I'm happy to report the critter's dead dead dead. It moved into my ceiling during the day yesterday, and--unknown to it--I have a vent in my ceiling. A vent I can open, and put a trap down. It got very glued yesterday--let's just put it that way. Of course, this means the thing might start stinking if I can't get it out . . . but that's why they invented potpourri.
Take that, mouse!
And in an update on my mouse situation, I'm happy to report the critter's dead dead dead. It moved into my ceiling during the day yesterday, and--unknown to it--I have a vent in my ceiling. A vent I can open, and put a trap down. It got very glued yesterday--let's just put it that way. Of course, this means the thing might start stinking if I can't get it out . . . but that's why they invented potpourri.
Take that, mouse!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Movie Reviews: Pan's Labyrinth and Watchmen
Thought I'd get these two reviews in on the same day, just because they're both movies I'd think many of you have heard about but not actually watched, due to their rating. If you're too lazy to read my reviews, I'll give you a brief overview: you ain't missing much.
That's not to say the films were bad. They were pretty good. But they weren't anything I'd have felt deprived of if I had missed them, and that means they were a disappointment to me. I'd heard such good things about them, and in the end, I was just sort of . . . meh.
Pan's Labyrinth is definitely visually striking. It tells the story of a girl in WWII Spain who's forced to deal with the horrors of war while at the same time investigating what might or might not be her own delusions of a fantasy world that's got more than a small twist of horror to it. DKC actually watched this one with me, and we both came to the same conclusion.
The film has a lot of good working for it. The visuals, the conflicts, the characters--there's a lot to invest yourself in, and it gives me a lot of hope for The Hobbit, which the director, Guillermo del Toro, is tackling next. By all accounts, I really ought to love this movie. It was nominated for 6 Oscars, it's at #68 on imdb's all time list . . . but it just didn't resonate with me. Maybe my expectations were too high.
What didn't I like about it? It all comes down to the characters, in the end. The young girl does some tremendously stupid things--things that are not justified at all. Part of me realizes that this is life, and people do tremendously stupid things all the time. But at the same time, I think people are generally consistent. If they're capable people, they'll still do stupid things, but you'll be able to understand why they did them--what their thought process was. Not in this case. For 95% of the time, the girl's remarkably capable, but in a few key moments, she's an idiot, plain and simple. I can't help but think there are some explanations to her actions somewhere on the editing room floor. The same goes for the maid in the film. She's capable, except when she's not. And when she's not, it makes 100% no sense. I'd be more specific, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers.
For me, characters come first--not the plot. If the plot demands that a character do something the character wouldn't do, change the character or change the plot. Don't make them do it. That said, I'll still give the film 3 stars. It just isn't the 4 stars I wanted it to be.
The second film, Watchmen, is another one that I feel like I ought to have loved. And I enjoyed it, but I didn't love it. Once again, the visuals were stunning, the action scenes were well-handled, the characters were fine (more or less). It was a polished film. For those of you living under rocks, it's the adaptation of one of the most famous graphic novels of all time. A graphic novel some people called unadaptable. Silly people
As an adaptation, the film works pretty well, but in a way, this is one of my gripes about it. In so many ways, it felt like the book. Too much like the book. The shots mirrored pictures in the graphic novel. The plot was about as jumbled as the novel. Yes, there were some changes made, but in the end, I was left wondering why they had made the movie. There's already a fantastic version of Watchmen. It's the original. If all you're going to do is replicate what's already been done, but now do it in a different format . . . what's the point? It's like Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho, where he practically recreated the original shot for shot--he just used different actors and filmed it in color. Why bother? If you're going to adapt something, adapt it. Don't xerox the thing.
What else didn't I like? Primarily one thing: it was gratuitously R-rated. I mean, downright nasty, gory, skanky R-rated. The sort of film you feel like taking a shower after. Yes, the graphic novel was also pretty darn gory, but it felt . . . more artistic? Less gratuitous, somehow. And there's definitely a big difference between seeing something depicted in a drawing on a page and seeing it depicted in 1080p bluray.
In the end, the film was good--but not great--for me. Which I suppose might have something to do with the fact that I felt the same way about the graphic novel. 3 stars.
That's not to say the films were bad. They were pretty good. But they weren't anything I'd have felt deprived of if I had missed them, and that means they were a disappointment to me. I'd heard such good things about them, and in the end, I was just sort of . . . meh.
Pan's Labyrinth is definitely visually striking. It tells the story of a girl in WWII Spain who's forced to deal with the horrors of war while at the same time investigating what might or might not be her own delusions of a fantasy world that's got more than a small twist of horror to it. DKC actually watched this one with me, and we both came to the same conclusion.
The film has a lot of good working for it. The visuals, the conflicts, the characters--there's a lot to invest yourself in, and it gives me a lot of hope for The Hobbit, which the director, Guillermo del Toro, is tackling next. By all accounts, I really ought to love this movie. It was nominated for 6 Oscars, it's at #68 on imdb's all time list . . . but it just didn't resonate with me. Maybe my expectations were too high.
What didn't I like about it? It all comes down to the characters, in the end. The young girl does some tremendously stupid things--things that are not justified at all. Part of me realizes that this is life, and people do tremendously stupid things all the time. But at the same time, I think people are generally consistent. If they're capable people, they'll still do stupid things, but you'll be able to understand why they did them--what their thought process was. Not in this case. For 95% of the time, the girl's remarkably capable, but in a few key moments, she's an idiot, plain and simple. I can't help but think there are some explanations to her actions somewhere on the editing room floor. The same goes for the maid in the film. She's capable, except when she's not. And when she's not, it makes 100% no sense. I'd be more specific, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers.
For me, characters come first--not the plot. If the plot demands that a character do something the character wouldn't do, change the character or change the plot. Don't make them do it. That said, I'll still give the film 3 stars. It just isn't the 4 stars I wanted it to be.
The second film, Watchmen, is another one that I feel like I ought to have loved. And I enjoyed it, but I didn't love it. Once again, the visuals were stunning, the action scenes were well-handled, the characters were fine (more or less). It was a polished film. For those of you living under rocks, it's the adaptation of one of the most famous graphic novels of all time. A graphic novel some people called unadaptable. Silly people
As an adaptation, the film works pretty well, but in a way, this is one of my gripes about it. In so many ways, it felt like the book. Too much like the book. The shots mirrored pictures in the graphic novel. The plot was about as jumbled as the novel. Yes, there were some changes made, but in the end, I was left wondering why they had made the movie. There's already a fantastic version of Watchmen. It's the original. If all you're going to do is replicate what's already been done, but now do it in a different format . . . what's the point? It's like Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho, where he practically recreated the original shot for shot--he just used different actors and filmed it in color. Why bother? If you're going to adapt something, adapt it. Don't xerox the thing.
What else didn't I like? Primarily one thing: it was gratuitously R-rated. I mean, downright nasty, gory, skanky R-rated. The sort of film you feel like taking a shower after. Yes, the graphic novel was also pretty darn gory, but it felt . . . more artistic? Less gratuitous, somehow. And there's definitely a big difference between seeing something depicted in a drawing on a page and seeing it depicted in 1080p bluray.
In the end, the film was good--but not great--for me. Which I suppose might have something to do with the fact that I felt the same way about the graphic novel. 3 stars.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Piano Lessons
So the piano has now officially been tuned. For those of you wondering, it plays beautifully. According to the tuner, our piano is from 1910, and is in good condition. I'm looking forward to having some time behind the keys for a while--I'd really like to get better at piano, and now that we have one up and running, I have the chance. That said, I'd also really like TRC and (eventually) DC to be able to play the piano, and for that, I'm turning to you, faithful readers.
What's a good age to start piano lessons? For you western-Mainers out there, know of any good teachers? What's a lesson usually go for? How often should they get lessons? Any information from anyone in the world would be greatly appreciated.
What's a good age to start piano lessons? For you western-Mainers out there, know of any good teachers? What's a lesson usually go for? How often should they get lessons? Any information from anyone in the world would be greatly appreciated.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Life without Television Thus Far (and a Writing Observation)
So it's been a week and a half since I ditched satellite, and I thought I'd report back on the experience. Honestly, it's felt very freeing. Some of the shows I watch regularly have started up in the meantime, and . . . I'm not watching them. No Chuck. No American Idol. No 30 Rock (well, I have watched 30 Rock online--some things shouldn't be lived without). I even missed the Golden Globes on Sunday, probably the hardest thing I've passed on to this point. But it's not like it's felt very difficult. It doesn't even feel like that big of a lifestyle change. The only real difference is that there's one less time-sink temptation in my life. With abundant TV available, I could always just sit there and channel surf if I wanted to. Now, the surfboard's been burned.
I like it.
And the promised writing observation? On an entirely different note, I heard back from the agent who had requested the full manuscript of Pawn of the Dead. It was a no, which was disappointing. How could it not be? At the same time, it's all just part of the process. The second I heard the request for the full, I was very happy--but in that same moment, the probability of being disappointed in the future shot up. Interesting how the more joy something brings you, the more potential you give it to bring you sorrow.
And that's all the metathinking I'm going to do today. Promise.
I like it.
And the promised writing observation? On an entirely different note, I heard back from the agent who had requested the full manuscript of Pawn of the Dead. It was a no, which was disappointing. How could it not be? At the same time, it's all just part of the process. The second I heard the request for the full, I was very happy--but in that same moment, the probability of being disappointed in the future shot up. Interesting how the more joy something brings you, the more potential you give it to bring you sorrow.
And that's all the metathinking I'm going to do today. Promise.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
To the Mouse Who was Gnawing the Wall next to My Bed at 2 AM
Dear Mouse,
I know you gotta eat. I know you're hungry. I can relate to that feeling. I'm hungry, too. A lot. The difference between me and you is that no one's going to kill me if I start eating, mainly because I make it a practice of not eating where I'm not supposed to. For example, I don't waltz into the middle of a Mafia meeting and start chowing down on a Big Mac. I'm not generally known to eat my lunch in the middle of a shark tank. I'm not in the habit of dining with rattlesnakes.
Let me be perfectly clear, rodent. You woke me up last night, and for that--and that alone--you must die.
I will hunt you down like the varmint you are. I will snap your head off, poison you, explode your innards, electrocute you, glue you to the floor and then throw you in the trash before you decompose. Or after. And I won't blink an eyelash. That's the sort of cold-blooded mouse killer I am. I will make other mice use you as the basis for a mouse-Braveheart biopic. When I'm through with you, even your ol' pal Pluto won't be able to recognize you. Minnie will be in tears (though she better cry quietly--and not at 2 AM). Goofy will need therapy. Donald will dance with glee. The Rescuers will put me on their Most Wanted list. Stuart Little will have nightmares for decades. Mighty Mouse will quake with fear. Tom will give me a high five.
I will do this for the simplest of reasons. I'm big. You're little. I have a mouse trap, and you don't. I'm cruel, heartless, mean, spiteful, vicious, and downright Machiavellian. I'm the Freddy Krueger of Mice Street. The Predator of Arnold Micennegger. Hannibal Mouseter without the desire to eat you when you're demised.
You hear me, mouse?
You're gonna die, and there's only one thing you can do to avoid this fate.
Move out of my house. Today. Run away! Take your family. Tell your neighbors. Do it now, or suffer the consequences.
You have been warned.
I know you gotta eat. I know you're hungry. I can relate to that feeling. I'm hungry, too. A lot. The difference between me and you is that no one's going to kill me if I start eating, mainly because I make it a practice of not eating where I'm not supposed to. For example, I don't waltz into the middle of a Mafia meeting and start chowing down on a Big Mac. I'm not generally known to eat my lunch in the middle of a shark tank. I'm not in the habit of dining with rattlesnakes.
Let me be perfectly clear, rodent. You woke me up last night, and for that--and that alone--you must die.
I will hunt you down like the varmint you are. I will snap your head off, poison you, explode your innards, electrocute you, glue you to the floor and then throw you in the trash before you decompose. Or after. And I won't blink an eyelash. That's the sort of cold-blooded mouse killer I am. I will make other mice use you as the basis for a mouse-Braveheart biopic. When I'm through with you, even your ol' pal Pluto won't be able to recognize you. Minnie will be in tears (though she better cry quietly--and not at 2 AM). Goofy will need therapy. Donald will dance with glee. The Rescuers will put me on their Most Wanted list. Stuart Little will have nightmares for decades. Mighty Mouse will quake with fear. Tom will give me a high five.
I will do this for the simplest of reasons. I'm big. You're little. I have a mouse trap, and you don't. I'm cruel, heartless, mean, spiteful, vicious, and downright Machiavellian. I'm the Freddy Krueger of Mice Street. The Predator of Arnold Micennegger. Hannibal Mouseter without the desire to eat you when you're demised.
You hear me, mouse?
You're gonna die, and there's only one thing you can do to avoid this fate.
Move out of my house. Today. Run away! Take your family. Tell your neighbors. Do it now, or suffer the consequences.
You have been warned.
Friday, January 15, 2010
What's Your WebMii Score?
I came across this cool site: WebMii. Basically, it does a web search for your name, then tells you how visible you are on the web. Thus, I now know that in the US, I rank in at 2.8 out of 10, meaning I'm not extremely visible, but more than not visible at all. My friend Brandon Sanderson, author extraordinaire, comes in at 7.3. Barack Obama is an 8.7. Clearly, I have a ways to go before my plans of world domination come to fruition.
What's your WebMii score?
What's your WebMii score?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Movie Reviews: Silent Movie and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother
Two films for you this time, because I know you're all in withdrawal from any recent movie reviews of mine. The first is Mel Brooks' Silent Movie. This is a film I'd heard the title of many times, but never really knew what it was about. For those of you who fall into my boat, this is a silent movie. Meaning they don't talk. (Well, technically, there's one word in it, but still--pretty silent.) It's about a big shot director who has an idea to make a new silent movie, and then tries to find big stars to be in it. As far as plot goes, there's not much there, really. And while I enjoyed the film, the joke dragged on after a while, even with Marty Feldman and Dom DeLuise to keep things going. Two stars, but worth it if you're a Brooks fan or in for some thoughtless fun.
The second movie follows Feldman and DeLuise over: Gene Wilder's directorial debut, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother, which I liked a fair bit, but once again dragged in spots. The movie is what it says in the title, with Gene Wilder playing the title role, and Feldman playing his Watson. Madeleine Kahn is in the film, too--which is a definite plus. It's got a lot of random, goofy fun, and if you're up for that sort of thing, then watch this movie. I imagine it would improve with repeat viewings, but for now, it's a 2.5 star movie for me. Bonus points for the musical numbers.
The second movie follows Feldman and DeLuise over: Gene Wilder's directorial debut, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother, which I liked a fair bit, but once again dragged in spots. The movie is what it says in the title, with Gene Wilder playing the title role, and Feldman playing his Watson. Madeleine Kahn is in the film, too--which is a definite plus. It's got a lot of random, goofy fun, and if you're up for that sort of thing, then watch this movie. I imagine it would improve with repeat viewings, but for now, it's a 2.5 star movie for me. Bonus points for the musical numbers.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Good Luck, Wilson!
My younger brother Wilson left on his 2 year Mormon mission to Curitiba Brazil this morning. Speaking as a returned missionary myself, I honestly can't say I really envy him. I mean, there were some good times on my mission, and I am 100% thankful I went, but it was some of the hardest 2 years of my life. (I can say this now that he's gone and can't read this--no internet for you, Wilson!) For those of you who don't know, a mission lasts for 2 years, during which time you have no television, no movies, no books, no newspapers, no phone calls (except to your family on Christmas and Mother's Day), no internet, no email--nada. Nothing but serving people and trying to teach about the church to people who often resent your efforts. Ah, the life of a missionary. :-) I remember my first night as a missionary very well--lying in bed, staring at the ceiling, wondering, "What in the WORLD have I gotten myself into?"
The good news is, it's all worth it. My mission made me the person I am today. It taught me more than I've ever learned about life, people, leadership, religion--you name it. Dickens couldn't have said it better: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it ws the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way."
Good luck, Wilson!
The good news is, it's all worth it. My mission made me the person I am today. It taught me more than I've ever learned about life, people, leadership, religion--you name it. Dickens couldn't have said it better: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it ws the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way."
Good luck, Wilson!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Dear Warner Bros (and Other Film Companies)
I've been catching up on tech blogs, and I just read that Warner Bros and Netflixed inked a deal that results in Netflix not releasing Warner new releases for 28 days after they've premiered. This means that a brand new movie you can buy in the store on day one won't be available via the red envelopes until day 28.
I am less than amused.
From what I understand, Netflix is getting a deal on the cost of the discs, and it should be able to stream more stuff from the film companies, but I still see this as a low blow by Warner. Hold streaming hostage until Netflix caves in on an unfair practice? Not too classy. Do these film companies WANT people to go out and download movies for free? Have they been totally out of it for the past decade and not paid any attention to the music industry's woes? Netflix is a good thing for these guys--it keeps people happy, and it keeps people legal. Making things more difficult for people isn't a good move, in my book.
What thinkest thou?
I am less than amused.
From what I understand, Netflix is getting a deal on the cost of the discs, and it should be able to stream more stuff from the film companies, but I still see this as a low blow by Warner. Hold streaming hostage until Netflix caves in on an unfair practice? Not too classy. Do these film companies WANT people to go out and download movies for free? Have they been totally out of it for the past decade and not paid any attention to the music industry's woes? Netflix is a good thing for these guys--it keeps people happy, and it keeps people legal. Making things more difficult for people isn't a good move, in my book.
What thinkest thou?
Monday, January 11, 2010
Why I Ditched Satellite
For those of you who have been following my Facebook updates, you've noticed that as of Friday, I canceled my Dish Network subscription. Some have expressed quite a bit of surprise at my willingness to do this. How could I, pop-culture freak that I am, unplug myself from the stream of Shiny? Well, I'm about to answer that.
First and foremost, I'm cheap at heart. I hate paying for something that I could get for free, or paying more for something that I could get for less. I really hate paying for something that I don't end up using. I was paying $50 a month for Dish. That was as bare-bones as I could make it, and it gave me quite a few channels in glorious HD. It also got me my DVR fix, which was really important. But then I took a step back and asked myself what I was really watching. Network shows and Mythbusters, with a smattering of ESPN. Well, network shows are broadcast in glorious HD for free over this thing called an antenna. Ever heard of those? What's more, the broadcast over the air is sometimes a better HD than the one you pay for via satellite or cable.
So let me get this straight--I was paying for something that I could get elsewhere in a better form, for free?
Okay, so that left Mythbusters and a smattering of ESPN. I love me my Mythbusters, but I don't love them $600 a year. And I enjoy ESPN a fair bit, but again--not to the tune of $600 per year. But what about DVR? Well, that's nothing more than a computer program that feeds information onto a hard drive. I gots me a hard drive, and I can do all teh compooter programz I wants. Why would I want to pay someone to do this for me?
So in the end, the cheapskate in me won out. There are much better places for me to put my $600 a year. A trip to Utah this year comes to mind, and trips to Florida or Slovakia or anywhere else also would be better uses for those funds. Voila--the Dish is gone.
I've now researched antennas exhaustively, and I'll be buying a Channel Master 4228HD in the near future, so I can have those free broadcasts. I'm a bit in the boonies, so I had to find something that should work well. I have high hopes. And if I can't get great signal, I can always watch things for free online via Hulu or the stations' web pages. And in the end, I can also get them sooner or later via Netflix, which I continue to pay for. ($10-$20 a month is much more reasonable than $50.)
Honestly, I don't think it's too long before we see a massive change in the way programming is delivered to everyone. The days of paying for bundles of stations no one wants to watch are numbered, IMHO. This recession thing will do them in. I for one am all in favor of that happening.
Because maybe then, I can buy Mythbusters ala carte, and I'll be 100% happy.
First and foremost, I'm cheap at heart. I hate paying for something that I could get for free, or paying more for something that I could get for less. I really hate paying for something that I don't end up using. I was paying $50 a month for Dish. That was as bare-bones as I could make it, and it gave me quite a few channels in glorious HD. It also got me my DVR fix, which was really important. But then I took a step back and asked myself what I was really watching. Network shows and Mythbusters, with a smattering of ESPN. Well, network shows are broadcast in glorious HD for free over this thing called an antenna. Ever heard of those? What's more, the broadcast over the air is sometimes a better HD than the one you pay for via satellite or cable.
So let me get this straight--I was paying for something that I could get elsewhere in a better form, for free?
Okay, so that left Mythbusters and a smattering of ESPN. I love me my Mythbusters, but I don't love them $600 a year. And I enjoy ESPN a fair bit, but again--not to the tune of $600 per year. But what about DVR? Well, that's nothing more than a computer program that feeds information onto a hard drive. I gots me a hard drive, and I can do all teh compooter programz I wants. Why would I want to pay someone to do this for me?
So in the end, the cheapskate in me won out. There are much better places for me to put my $600 a year. A trip to Utah this year comes to mind, and trips to Florida or Slovakia or anywhere else also would be better uses for those funds. Voila--the Dish is gone.
I've now researched antennas exhaustively, and I'll be buying a Channel Master 4228HD in the near future, so I can have those free broadcasts. I'm a bit in the boonies, so I had to find something that should work well. I have high hopes. And if I can't get great signal, I can always watch things for free online via Hulu or the stations' web pages. And in the end, I can also get them sooner or later via Netflix, which I continue to pay for. ($10-$20 a month is much more reasonable than $50.)
Honestly, I don't think it's too long before we see a massive change in the way programming is delivered to everyone. The days of paying for bundles of stations no one wants to watch are numbered, IMHO. This recession thing will do them in. I for one am all in favor of that happening.
Because maybe then, I can buy Mythbusters ala carte, and I'll be 100% happy.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Holidays Continue
I'm taking a four day weekend this weekend. Why? Because I wanted to. So today I learned how to carve wooden spoons for a couple of hours, I took a nap, decluttered some, and this evening we're having friends over, and I'm going to see if it's possible to get an over-the-air HD signal here at my house. A much more laid back day today than yesterday, and I'm not going to congest it with a lengthy blog post. Have a nice weekend, all. See you on Monday.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Last Minute Changes
I don't do well with problems that pop up at the last minute. I know there are people out there who thrive on that sort of thing, but I'm much more of a planner. When something pops up last second--especially something I think could have been on the radar much sooner if someone else had done something differently--I am not amused.
Not amused at all.
Not amused at all.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Movie Review: Czech Dream
Now that we have Netflix back, the wife and I can stream movies to our little hearts' content. One that I'd heard about a while ago and added to my queue was Czech Dream. It's a movie made by two film students in Prague. Basically, they decided to film a social experiment. They created an extensive ad campaign for a Walmart-esque store that was to open in Prague. They ran said campaign--successfully, I might add. The only hitch? There was no actual store. It's a campaign for a product that didn't exist. It's a fairly straightforward premise, but the way it plays out in the film is fascinating. I really enjoyed the film: 3 and a half stars, though of course, I'm already fairly interested in things Czech or Slovak-related.
Along those lines, one thing that I noticed in the film was the attitude of the Czech people toward superstores like Walmart. They looked forward to them--saw them as a great addition to the area, loved shopping there, got excited about them. This is in stark contrast to the growing sentiment I see here in America toward superstores. People hate them. They go to great lengths to avoid shopping at them. In a way, it seemed like the Czech approach is a few decades behind America's approach. We're in a "been there, didn't like that" phase, while to them, it's all still new and exciting. Now in America (or at least my corner of it), I see a growing desire to get things local--to downsize. To go to smaller niche stores. It's like Americans want what Czechs have, and they want what we have.
Maybe the grass really is always greener . . .
Along those lines, one thing that I noticed in the film was the attitude of the Czech people toward superstores like Walmart. They looked forward to them--saw them as a great addition to the area, loved shopping there, got excited about them. This is in stark contrast to the growing sentiment I see here in America toward superstores. People hate them. They go to great lengths to avoid shopping at them. In a way, it seemed like the Czech approach is a few decades behind America's approach. We're in a "been there, didn't like that" phase, while to them, it's all still new and exciting. Now in America (or at least my corner of it), I see a growing desire to get things local--to downsize. To go to smaller niche stores. It's like Americans want what Czechs have, and they want what we have.
Maybe the grass really is always greener . . .
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Movie Review: Julie and Julia
DKC and I have resubscribed to Netflix, so the days of movie watching are back in business. (And I can stream now from my PS3? How cool is that!) One of the first movies I got was Julie and Julia, the Julia Childs biopic that came out about a year ago, with Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. We enjoyed the film. It tells the story of Julia Child's efforts to become a cooking teacher, and it mirrors those struggles with a blogger's experiences--she endeavors to do each recipe from Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking, in one year. I think it did a good job portraying how even apparently successful people have their own struggles to get where they end up, and the performances were good across the board. (It was fun watching how they did their best to make Streep (5'6") look like Childs (6'2")--sort of like trying to make Frodo Baggins look like Gandalf. Three stars.
One thought that occurred to me during the film was how they were able to convey the sense of taste through film. It wasn't like this was tast-o-vision, or smell-o-vision or whatever. There's literally no way to get the audience to taste what they're depicting. However, you couldn't help but feel like you'd been sampling some of the fare by the end of the film. How did they do that? I think first and foremost, they did it by showing characters' reactions to the food. If it was really good, they showed the characters talking about how good it was, and showed their expressions--you could see they were enjoying it. Second, they took care to detail the food--describe it well. The food shots were well-filmed, and the food looked delicious. Add to that some good sound effects, and voila. Bon appetit! It's something I need to strive to do better in my writing, as well. Sometimes I think I rush through descriptions, when what I really need to do is take the time to provide enough detail that the audience connects with it--that they experience the scene more than a cursory overview can give.
Anyway, there's my 2 cents for today. Sorry I didn't post yesterday--I was too busy not procrastinating pleasure. I took the day off work and . . . did a bunch of chores. So maybe I procrastinated pleasure a bit more, but my kitchen hutch is looking less cluttered than it has since we moved in, and that's a bit of pleasure every time I look at it.
One thought that occurred to me during the film was how they were able to convey the sense of taste through film. It wasn't like this was tast-o-vision, or smell-o-vision or whatever. There's literally no way to get the audience to taste what they're depicting. However, you couldn't help but feel like you'd been sampling some of the fare by the end of the film. How did they do that? I think first and foremost, they did it by showing characters' reactions to the food. If it was really good, they showed the characters talking about how good it was, and showed their expressions--you could see they were enjoying it. Second, they took care to detail the food--describe it well. The food shots were well-filmed, and the food looked delicious. Add to that some good sound effects, and voila. Bon appetit! It's something I need to strive to do better in my writing, as well. Sometimes I think I rush through descriptions, when what I really need to do is take the time to provide enough detail that the audience connects with it--that they experience the scene more than a cursory overview can give.
Anyway, there's my 2 cents for today. Sorry I didn't post yesterday--I was too busy not procrastinating pleasure. I took the day off work and . . . did a bunch of chores. So maybe I procrastinated pleasure a bit more, but my kitchen hutch is looking less cluttered than it has since we moved in, and that's a bit of pleasure every time I look at it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
