Make up Journal, the Return to Middle Earth (Revised)

Make up Journal, the Return to Middle Earth (Revised)

I saw all the Lord of the Rings movies at midnight the night of their release. I read the books for the first time when I was 12. I can safely say I am a fan. Stephen Colbert has actually devoted the whole week of The Colbert Report to the movie, and I have enjoyed it immensely. That being said, I am not sure about The Hobbit being split into three movies. The Lord of the Rings needed three (fairly long) movies because it was three books (or 6, if you go by volumes, which is how Tolkien apparently envisioned them being published). The Hobbit is only one. I understand there are lots of reasons to break it up, not the least of which is the amount of money each film is likely to make. When they first said it was going to broken into two, I was excited. Twice the fun, and they could go deeper into the story than they did for The Lord of the Rings.  But three seems a bit excessive. I am still exited, and looking forward to seeing all of them. But I hope the story does not suffer too much from the breakup. Because I would rather see one (or two) very good movies than three mediocre ones with illogical and arbitrary stopping points.

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-december-3-2012-ian-mckellen

The Hobbit

I saw all the Lord of the Rings movies at midnight the night of their release. I read the books for the first time when I was 12. I can safely say I am a fan. Stephen Colbert has actually devoted the whole week of The Colbert Report to the movie, and I have enjoyed it immensely. That being said, I am not sure about The Hobbit being split into three movies. The Lord of the Rings needed three (fairly long) movies because it was three books (or 6, if you go by volumes, which is how Tolkien apparently envisioned them being published). The Hobbit is only one. I understand there are lots of reasons to break it up, not the least of which is the amount of money each film is likely to make. When they first said it was going to broken into two, I was exited. Twice the fun, and they could go deeper into the story than they did for The Lord of the Rings.  But three seems a bit excessive. I am still exited, and looking forward to seeing all of them. But I hope the story does not suffer too much from the breakup. Because I would rather see one (or two) very good movies than three mediocre ones with illogical and arbitrary stopping points.

Star Wars

So Disney has purchased the rights to Star Wars from George Lucas. I am what you could call a "nerd." While Star Wars is certainly not the holy grail of nerdom to me as it is to some of my friends, I thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy(episodes 4-6). The prequel trilogy I enjoyed... less so, though I still enjoyed watching them (mostly, Jar Jar was pretty darn annoying). The other night I was hanging out with some friends and we ended up talking about the possibilities now that Disney has control. We all agreed that Disney is certainly capable of making excellent (and bad) films, and that the fact that more movies will be made is a good thing. I was surprised though, that no one seemed to mind that Disney made the purchase. I was the only one that was worried that George Lucas will not be heavily involved in the now announced next Star Wars installment. Most of my friends seemed to think that after the "poor" movies of the prequel trilogy George Lucas is clearly not capable of making any more "good" Star Wars movies. This might be true, and this matters much more to most of my friends, who are much bigger Star Wars fans than I am. But I can't help that think a big part of Star Wars, original and prequels, is somehow his. And that if he can't (or won't) make good Star Wars movies, can anyone? I am sure I will see whatever the next movie is. But I think that the optimism shown by my friends now that Disney is in control might be dashed whenever the next installment is released.

Journal

Sandy

So I just found out that my Aunt and Uncle on Long Island finally got power back. They had been running on a reasonably small generator for quite a while. I guess they were letting neighbors keep food in their fridge and let them shower. I find it interesting that their response to a crisis was to help neighbors while at least one man (allegedly) refused to let a woman a her two young sons into his home during the hurricane itself, apparently leading to both of the boys drowning. With the number of news organizations, charities and websites devoting space to seek donations to those affected and so on, I wonder how many of those people who are donating would actually help others during the crisis itself, not after the fact. It seems cynical of me I am sure, but I cant help think that all those people clamoring for the man who refused to help might respond in the exact same way he did, by choosing not to get involved.

Journal 2

One of my all time favorite movies is Clerks. Though a low budget film, it manages to convey a view of the world through the eyes of a group that had been largely ignored in popular culture until this point, the "slackers." Those people working a job that society says they should have moved on from by now. I think what hits me the most is how "real" the movie feels, despite the fairly improbable circumstances that occur within the film (the funeral, hockey on the roof, etc). The dialog is superb and flows seamlessly, despite the ridiculousness of what is often being discussed. It exposes you to a world and a way of thinking that, though it exists all around us, is often ignored.
As for genres of films that interest me, I have always enjoyed science fiction. The idea that man could be his own undoing through the attempted mastery of science and technology, such as the virus in The Andromeda Strain, can make a very interesting story. I also enjoy the idea of the "other." I find this especially interesting because it helps us imagine what different beings could be like. Not just aliens or monsters, but perhaps our own creations such as the replicants from Blade Runner. Though many science fiction movies can be cheesy or simply special effect extravaganzas, some manage to be incredibly interesting thought experiments.

Winning

In Winning Actually Isn’t the Only Thing (The Washington Post) David Maraniss argues that the blown call at the end of the Green Bay Packer game is indicative of larger problems within the NFL and the United States. He argues that the “winning is everything” attitude that was shown by the Seattle Seahawk coach (Pete Carroll) and the quarterback (Russell Wilson) is the real problem. The fact that the Seahawks celebrated like they somehow earned the win, as opposed to being awarded the win based on nothing but a clearly incorrect call shows this winning is everything attitude. That it is the win that matters, regardless of how it is achieved. He further argues that the call is not really the fault of the replacement refs; but the fault of the league for looking after the pocketbooks of the team owners (by not paying the regular refs better), not the good of the game.

            I do agree that this attitude is prevalent. I also feel that within the game of football winning is the only thing that matters. It is what determines if you make the playoffs. It is what decides home-field advantage. And winning is what decides who gets to hoist the Lombardi Trophy. The problem is that the call Monday night was in many ways outside of the game of football. It was clearly the inexperience of the refs that made this call happen. A dispute between the NFL and the Referee’s union should not decide a winner. But it did. So I do agree with Rick Maraniss. Even if a team plays badly but gets lucky then celebrating a win is fine. But this was beyond luck, and should have been treated by Seattle as such. After all, they do get the “W” no matter how they react, so being humble about it couldn’t hurt when it happens under these circumstances.

The believing game B

Airlines have every right to charge for any number of bags. The simple fact is by not charging a bag fee; people without luggage are subsidizing those who do fly with luggage. That is unfair to those who do fly without checked luggage, such as short trips and many business travelers. The fee is obviously posted by airlines and common knowledge, so there is nothing hidden about it.