Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Crack The Skye
So, I figured I'd give my opinion on an album I've recently gotten semi back into.
The album is progressive metal, a unique sound I happen to like. The album even tells a slight story involving wormholes and astral travel. It has a really cool sound to it. I've even tried listening to the album released previous to this album and it sounds different. Three members of the band share vocals, another thing not seen frequently in music today. If your into some metal, you may want to check this out. The version I have even came with a DVD that shows the band recording the album and going over the songs. It's different then your standard metal album.
The album is progressive metal, a unique sound I happen to like. The album even tells a slight story involving wormholes and astral travel. It has a really cool sound to it. I've even tried listening to the album released previous to this album and it sounds different. Three members of the band share vocals, another thing not seen frequently in music today. If your into some metal, you may want to check this out. The version I have even came with a DVD that shows the band recording the album and going over the songs. It's different then your standard metal album.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Re: £1,500,000.00 GBP has been granted to your E-MAIL:
I think these email spam places have gotten lazier. Just saying...
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:52 PM, liverwood <web4638@btinternet.com> wrote:
Sunday, March 6, 2011
What's Your Weekend Like?
I'm preparing to interview the Axe Cop team on Monday via email. What are you guys up to?
Friday, March 4, 2011
Fwd: Unsung 80's Action Figures...Reborn
Just got this in as an email. It looks awesome!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: GeekChicDaily <today@geekchicdaily.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Unsung 80's Action Figures...Reborn
To: scott.thomas.barnes@gmail.com
From: GeekChicDaily <today@geekchicdaily.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Unsung 80's Action Figures...Reborn
To: scott.thomas.barnes@gmail.com
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Games | Toys | Comics | Movies / TV | Tech | Gear Home | About | Press | FAQ | Search | Contact | Media Kit | RSS Sign Up | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Terms & Conditions Copyright GeekChicDaily LLC, 2917 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404 USA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All's Quiet On The Western Front...
So today we've asked Axe Cop for an interview and we got accepted. I'll be emailing him the questions this weekend for fun and disaster! Check out Axe Cop in the mean time at www.AXECOP.com!
Also, Friday's night picks for television are as follow: GIJoe: Renegades on HUB, Transformers: Prime on HUB, and Supernatural on CW. Check your TV guide for listings.
Weekend movies suggestions? We'll got them too.
The Adjustment Bureau looks promising but I'm tired of psychological thrillers so if anyone sees this movie, please let me know how it is. Rango seems to be my safe bet of all the movies coming out this weekend. Check out the rest of the movies for this weekend and the rest of March via Moviefone.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Ring Goes South -or- A Grumpy Old Man Complains About Hippies
Despite the fact that I have contracted a virulent and miserable cold and that my throat is swelling closed as we speak in apparent mockery of the healing orange juice I've been consuming and the salt water with which I have recently gargled, I am intent on making a post today! The days blur together when you're a chronic insomniac, but I'm relatively certain that I haven't missed a week since I agreed to contribute. (Feel free to correct me.)
I recently watched all 3 movies in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings super extreme blockbuster trilogy, the extended editions, for what is roughly the twelve-thousandth time. My father read The Hobbit to me when I was a child, and I have been fascinated with Tolkien ever since. I'm such a Tolkien dork that I pronounce his last name as he did - toll-KEEN - even though I know it makes me sound like a hipster doofus. I love the movies, I really do; the visuals are stunning, the casting is great, and the music is excellent. There is no question that Peter Jackson knows how to make a good movie. (Hipster doofus says: see The Frighteners.) I squirm a bit at the changes made, though I understand most of them. The book as it is would be unfilmable. Part of me wants to cry out that it is Glorfindel who faces the Nazgûl at the Ford of Buinen, that the Argonath should depict Anárion and Isildur and not Isildur and Elendil, that Haldir was not present for the Battle of the Hornburg, and that Aragorn actually summons the Oathbreakers from the Stone of Erech, but I'm not a purist by any stretch. I understand that, in any adaptation, there will be deviations from the source material. There is, I admit, a certain galling conceit when drastic changes are made; Faramir is shown to covet the Ring of Power in the movie when he never does so in the book, and Jackson's explanation for this is that Faramir "needed a character arc." To make judgments upon the work of Tolkien, as if one could write The Lord of the Rings better than he did, seems to require a rationalization that I cannot even imagine anyone making. Still, I watch. I watch the films again and again. I love what I love about them and I try not to gripe.
But there is one aspect of the movie that I cannot help but complain about every time, in spite of myself: the anachronistic dialogue.
Some of the lines in the movie are pulled directly from Tolkien's story. Many, of course, were written by screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. When you must compare Tolkien's lines with theirs, Tolkien ends up blasting them out of the water, which is only understandable. Tolkien had a unique voice; his narratives read like history, and he had a way with words that one would expect from a professor of philology. He had the unique ability to make himself disappear from the story almost entirely, leaving the reader with only elves, hobbits, dwarves, and other such creatures to escort you though his imagination. But his characters do not speak in normal ways. Their diction is outmoded and, apparently, unsuitable for blockbuster crowds. When you hold lines like "You cannot pass, I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor," up to such gems as "Let's hunt some orc," or "Nobody tosses a dwarf," the comparison almost seems unsporting. And I'm not just talking about corny lines here: I'm also talking about sentiments that Tolkien very probably never intended to convey.
In the mid 60s, The Lord of the Rings became wildly popular in the United States. It was embraced by many followers of the burgeoning hippie movement, who saw it through their particular lens and occasionally touted it as a kind of hippie manifesto. As is common when a work is embraced as a cultural phenomenon, the book was reinterpreted by biased parties who projected their own values onto it. The hippies saw in The Lord of the Rings messages and ideals that seemed to coincide with their own, and that has left its mark on certain individuals who might be referred to today as neo-hippies. Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens definitely fall into that category, and it is evident in their treatment of Tolkien's intellectual property that they are either unable or unwilling to separate the work from the movement that embraced it. Tolkien's work did have allegorical elements, despite his claims that he despised allegory and did not intend The Lord of the Rings to be allegorical, but the parts of this great novel that seem to refer to modern society are merely reflective, being designed not to comment on any contemporary issue but to bind his expansive mythology to the vaguely remembered names and stories that seem to linger in our collective consciousness. It's not so much allegory as it is allusion that we see in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's worlds seem strangely familiar, and, unfortunately, this has led many an interpreter to conclude that the author intended to take sides in certain argument. Peter Jackson's films carry moral themes about following one's heart and believing in one's ability to affect change in the world: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." There is a floweriness to their message which is entirely modern, and I may be alone in saying that this is pretty obnoxious. The fact is that The Lord of the Rings has no more of a moral than a history documentary might have, and it detracts from the story when the literary voices of those who adapted it blare so unabashedly out at the audience.
I maintain that The Lord of the Rings was not written to be a series of super blockbuster films. No, the characters do not speak in a normal-sounding way, but neither do those of Shakespeare. The book has been in publication since 1954; it clearly does not need to be dumbed down to appeal to a larger audience. That may seem unfair, because Jackson's film really is masterfully-crafted and it fully lives up to Tolkien's high-fantasy in many ways. But so much of the dialogue is grating and out of place that, try as I might, I cannot enjoy the film as much as I feel that I should being a fan of all things Tolkien.
-Namárië-
I recently watched all 3 movies in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings super extreme blockbuster trilogy, the extended editions, for what is roughly the twelve-thousandth time. My father read The Hobbit to me when I was a child, and I have been fascinated with Tolkien ever since. I'm such a Tolkien dork that I pronounce his last name as he did - toll-KEEN - even though I know it makes me sound like a hipster doofus. I love the movies, I really do; the visuals are stunning, the casting is great, and the music is excellent. There is no question that Peter Jackson knows how to make a good movie. (Hipster doofus says: see The Frighteners.) I squirm a bit at the changes made, though I understand most of them. The book as it is would be unfilmable. Part of me wants to cry out that it is Glorfindel who faces the Nazgûl at the Ford of Buinen, that the Argonath should depict Anárion and Isildur and not Isildur and Elendil, that Haldir was not present for the Battle of the Hornburg, and that Aragorn actually summons the Oathbreakers from the Stone of Erech, but I'm not a purist by any stretch. I understand that, in any adaptation, there will be deviations from the source material. There is, I admit, a certain galling conceit when drastic changes are made; Faramir is shown to covet the Ring of Power in the movie when he never does so in the book, and Jackson's explanation for this is that Faramir "needed a character arc." To make judgments upon the work of Tolkien, as if one could write The Lord of the Rings better than he did, seems to require a rationalization that I cannot even imagine anyone making. Still, I watch. I watch the films again and again. I love what I love about them and I try not to gripe.
But there is one aspect of the movie that I cannot help but complain about every time, in spite of myself: the anachronistic dialogue.
Some of the lines in the movie are pulled directly from Tolkien's story. Many, of course, were written by screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. When you must compare Tolkien's lines with theirs, Tolkien ends up blasting them out of the water, which is only understandable. Tolkien had a unique voice; his narratives read like history, and he had a way with words that one would expect from a professor of philology. He had the unique ability to make himself disappear from the story almost entirely, leaving the reader with only elves, hobbits, dwarves, and other such creatures to escort you though his imagination. But his characters do not speak in normal ways. Their diction is outmoded and, apparently, unsuitable for blockbuster crowds. When you hold lines like "You cannot pass, I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor," up to such gems as "Let's hunt some orc," or "Nobody tosses a dwarf," the comparison almost seems unsporting. And I'm not just talking about corny lines here: I'm also talking about sentiments that Tolkien very probably never intended to convey.
In the mid 60s, The Lord of the Rings became wildly popular in the United States. It was embraced by many followers of the burgeoning hippie movement, who saw it through their particular lens and occasionally touted it as a kind of hippie manifesto. As is common when a work is embraced as a cultural phenomenon, the book was reinterpreted by biased parties who projected their own values onto it. The hippies saw in The Lord of the Rings messages and ideals that seemed to coincide with their own, and that has left its mark on certain individuals who might be referred to today as neo-hippies. Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens definitely fall into that category, and it is evident in their treatment of Tolkien's intellectual property that they are either unable or unwilling to separate the work from the movement that embraced it. Tolkien's work did have allegorical elements, despite his claims that he despised allegory and did not intend The Lord of the Rings to be allegorical, but the parts of this great novel that seem to refer to modern society are merely reflective, being designed not to comment on any contemporary issue but to bind his expansive mythology to the vaguely remembered names and stories that seem to linger in our collective consciousness. It's not so much allegory as it is allusion that we see in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's worlds seem strangely familiar, and, unfortunately, this has led many an interpreter to conclude that the author intended to take sides in certain argument. Peter Jackson's films carry moral themes about following one's heart and believing in one's ability to affect change in the world: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." There is a floweriness to their message which is entirely modern, and I may be alone in saying that this is pretty obnoxious. The fact is that The Lord of the Rings has no more of a moral than a history documentary might have, and it detracts from the story when the literary voices of those who adapted it blare so unabashedly out at the audience.
I maintain that The Lord of the Rings was not written to be a series of super blockbuster films. No, the characters do not speak in a normal-sounding way, but neither do those of Shakespeare. The book has been in publication since 1954; it clearly does not need to be dumbed down to appeal to a larger audience. That may seem unfair, because Jackson's film really is masterfully-crafted and it fully lives up to Tolkien's high-fantasy in many ways. But so much of the dialogue is grating and out of place that, try as I might, I cannot enjoy the film as much as I feel that I should being a fan of all things Tolkien.
-Namárië-
Introduction
Hello there, fine people. My name is Josh and I have just joined Scott's blog. I do not know much about comic books but I would definitely like to learn all about their amazingness and see everybody else's point of views on them.
My interests include pro wrestling, video games (mostly RPG, wrestling and adventure games), driving to fun places such as New York or any other adventurous places in New Jersey and I enjoy making HTML profiles.
My favorite movies are American Psycho, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and of course the James Bond series. I will try to update what else I like a little bit later, for I must get to sleep. I hope I have an awesome time here. :)
My interests include pro wrestling, video games (mostly RPG, wrestling and adventure games), driving to fun places such as New York or any other adventurous places in New Jersey and I enjoy making HTML profiles.
My favorite movies are American Psycho, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and of course the James Bond series. I will try to update what else I like a little bit later, for I must get to sleep. I hope I have an awesome time here. :)
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
THE INFESTATION HAS BEGUN!
So the Infestation from IDW started in January with IDW's own first issue of INFESTATION and then carried into February with Transformers and Star Trek taking weekly turns for updates. Tomorrow, for NEW COMIC BOOK DAY WEDNESDAY, we see more updates with GIJOE and then, GHOSTBUSTBUSERS. Cool deal, eh brah?
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Don't Sit Down It's Time to Built Another One
With Transformers month coming to an end, I thought I would attempt a look into the future of the brand. Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Michael Bay's last entry in the series, is set to open in the United States in a little less than 4 months. Much has already been said about it, most notably that Megan Fox will not be reprising her role as Mikaela Banes. She will be replaced by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, an English model who'll portray Sam Witwicky's new love interest, Carly. While I'm happy to see the introduction of a canon character (in the G1 series, Carly married Spike Witwicky and eventually became the mother of Daniel), I'm disappointed to see that a model has been cast in the role. The ratio of models who have become good actresses to models who have ended up playing the wooden-faced vamp to Steven Seagal's generic one-liner hero guy strongly favors the latter, I am sad to say, and if Mr. Bay's gratuitous use of Megan Fox as purposeless eye candy is any indicator of what we might expect from Ms. Huntington-Whiteley in the Carly role, I am not holding out much hope for the character. I have nothing against excessive use of closeups on hot chicks, mind you, but my feeling is that you don't need eye candy in a Transformers movie. The giant alien robots that transform into cars and planes are the eye candy! To be honest, I could deal with seeing less attention paid to the human storylines, but if you're going to have a human taking screentime away from Optimus Prime and Megatron, she'd better have something more than good looks to offer us. I won't shoot Rosie down just yet - that wouldn't be fair. No, I shall let her do that herself.
Next is the Cybertronian cast list. It's quite long, at least as far as the Autobots go, and this also makes me worry a bit. Roadbuster and Silverbolt are listed - the former being a member of the Wreckers, who transform into NASCAR stock cars. Unnamed robots appear on both the Autobot and Decepticon cast lists, which are constantly changing. Skids and Mudflap were on it until recently, but they are now being omitted (to my relief). The one thing this film can do without besides empty T&A is comic relief characters. Skids and Mudflap had virtually no role to play in Revenge of the Fallen and had no interactions with any other transformers besides Devastator. They were not acknowledged in any way by any Cybertronian character, not even when they were present in scenes with them. I didn't think they represented racist stereotypes, but I did think they were stupid and unnecessary. Can Bay make Dark of the Moon without a goofball character? I look at the robot cast and I see lots of potential for 3-second appearances on screen, like poor Sideways got in RotF, and the mention of a Cybertronian character that resembles Albert Einstein makes me think that Skids and Mudflap will be present in spirit even if they are ultimately written out.
I will see this film, of course. I freely admit that I am a slave to Hasbro and the Transformers brand, and not even the previous films' failings will be able to keep me out of the theater. While the first two movies left me feeling disappointed as a bound and branded Transformers fanboy, I have to admit that they were entertaining - RotF in a chaotic, Benny Hill kind of way. I know I often sound quite bitter, but I really am looking forward to Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The toys look cool, at least! And hey, Optimus Prime has a trailer this time.
Next is the Cybertronian cast list. It's quite long, at least as far as the Autobots go, and this also makes me worry a bit. Roadbuster and Silverbolt are listed - the former being a member of the Wreckers, who transform into NASCAR stock cars. Unnamed robots appear on both the Autobot and Decepticon cast lists, which are constantly changing. Skids and Mudflap were on it until recently, but they are now being omitted (to my relief). The one thing this film can do without besides empty T&A is comic relief characters. Skids and Mudflap had virtually no role to play in Revenge of the Fallen and had no interactions with any other transformers besides Devastator. They were not acknowledged in any way by any Cybertronian character, not even when they were present in scenes with them. I didn't think they represented racist stereotypes, but I did think they were stupid and unnecessary. Can Bay make Dark of the Moon without a goofball character? I look at the robot cast and I see lots of potential for 3-second appearances on screen, like poor Sideways got in RotF, and the mention of a Cybertronian character that resembles Albert Einstein makes me think that Skids and Mudflap will be present in spirit even if they are ultimately written out.
I will see this film, of course. I freely admit that I am a slave to Hasbro and the Transformers brand, and not even the previous films' failings will be able to keep me out of the theater. While the first two movies left me feeling disappointed as a bound and branded Transformers fanboy, I have to admit that they were entertaining - RotF in a chaotic, Benny Hill kind of way. I know I often sound quite bitter, but I really am looking forward to Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The toys look cool, at least! And hey, Optimus Prime has a trailer this time.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
It's Been A While
Hey everybody!
Back after a while with a new blog post. Recently, I've acquired a second ps3, a second laptop, and the book Star Wars:The Force Unleashed. First lets start with the laptop. It's an Acer with a 1 Ghz processor and 3 GBs of RAM, and also boats an AMD processor with their new fusion technology. The way it's been described to me is it is that the graphics chip is integrated into the processor and can run decent 3D games. I happen to like it all though initially I thought it was kinda slow. I also upgraded from home premium to windows 7 ultimate. Now the cool thing with this laptop is if I go to some event or I'm out and about I can make a blog post.
So now to the PS3, it's a slim ps3, the newer style. It's got a 160GB hard drive. That's a huge improvement from the 40 GB I have been dealing with. Now I'm barely playing it, especially since the new laptop is in the house.
Now, The Force Unleashed, after playing a lacking Force Unleashed 2, I saw the book corresponding to the first game and bought it. I'm not reading it fast, and I'm not a big reader so it may be a while. Still, I'll now be able to understand the back story to the first game, and why Starkiller the apprentice befriends a jedi.
Back after a while with a new blog post. Recently, I've acquired a second ps3, a second laptop, and the book Star Wars:The Force Unleashed. First lets start with the laptop. It's an Acer with a 1 Ghz processor and 3 GBs of RAM, and also boats an AMD processor with their new fusion technology. The way it's been described to me is it is that the graphics chip is integrated into the processor and can run decent 3D games. I happen to like it all though initially I thought it was kinda slow. I also upgraded from home premium to windows 7 ultimate. Now the cool thing with this laptop is if I go to some event or I'm out and about I can make a blog post.
So now to the PS3, it's a slim ps3, the newer style. It's got a 160GB hard drive. That's a huge improvement from the 40 GB I have been dealing with. Now I'm barely playing it, especially since the new laptop is in the house.
Now, The Force Unleashed, after playing a lacking Force Unleashed 2, I saw the book corresponding to the first game and bought it. I'm not reading it fast, and I'm not a big reader so it may be a while. Still, I'll now be able to understand the back story to the first game, and why Starkiller the apprentice befriends a jedi.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
BEAST MACHINES!
After three glorious years of Beast Wars, Fox and Bob Skir gave us this abomination...
Ok, I just lost all inspiration for Transformers month. I'm going to let Ken finish up because he knows more about Transformers after this point!
Ok, I just lost all inspiration for Transformers month. I'm going to let Ken finish up because he knows more about Transformers after this point!
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
BEAST WARS!
In 1995, I remember finding what at first seemed like a bad idea: animals that turned into robots. It seemed like something out of a Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers plot. They kind of looked like Lion King figures in their animal modes. The basic red scales around a yellow-green eye with the toy in the blister pack located there was all I could look at for a few moments before I realized that these were licensed Transformers from Hasbro. Bwah? Fleshy animal modes into animals? No way...
But then I happened to see the cartoon show on the day it debuted and it was flipping fantastic.
The series was great. It was always the Maximals trying to get home from a pre-historic Earth while trying to stop the evil Predacons led by Megatron; who took his name from the G1 Megatron. Four three wonderful seasons of CGIness, we saw the likes of Optimus Primal, Cheetor, Rattrap, Rhinox, Dinobot with some additions fight Megatron, Terrorsaur, Waspinator, and a couple more. It was a series where the good guys were often outnumbered by the bad guys; but the casts were both kept small.
Sadly, it came to an end for the next post's topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)