Consistent and Believable

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Doctor Who is fun to watch, but it’s not consistent and believable like Babylon 5. The worst offender though is the History Channel’s World War II:

Let’s start with the bad guys. Battalions of stormtroopers dressed in all black, check. Secret police, check. Determination to brutally kill everyone who doesn’t look like them, check. Leader with a tiny villain mustache and a tendency to go into apopleptic rage when he doesn’t get his way, check. All this from a country that was ordinary, believable, and dare I say it sometimes even sympathetic in previous seasons.

I wouldn’t even mind the lack of originality if they weren’t so heavy-handed about it. Apparently we’re supposed to believe that in the middle of the war the Germans attacked their allies the Russians, starting an unwinnable conflict on two fronts, just to show how sneaky and untrustworthy they could be? And that they diverted all their resources to use in making ever bigger and scarier death camps, even in the middle of a huge war? Real people just aren’t that evil. And that’s not even counting the part where as soon as the plot requires it, they instantly forget about all the racism nonsense and become best buddies with the definitely non-Aryan Japanese.

Not that the good guys are much better. Their leader, Churchill, appeared in a grand total of one episode before, where he was a bumbling general who suffered an embarrassing defeat to the Ottomans of all people in the Battle of Gallipoli. Now, all of a sudden, he’s not only Prime Minister, he’s not only a brilliant military commander, he’s not only the greatest orator of the twentieth century who can convince the British to keep going against all odds, he’s also a natural wit who is able to pull out hilarious one-liners practically on demand. I know he’s supposed to be the hero, but it’s not realistic unless you keep the guy at least vaguely human.

So it’s pretty standard “shining amazing good guys who can do no wrong” versus “evil legions of darkness bent on torture and genocide” stuff, totally ignoring the nuances and realities of politics. The actual strategy of the war is barely any better. Just to give one example, in the Battle of the Bulge, a vastly larger force of Germans surround a small Allied battalion and demand they surrender or be killed. The Allied general sends back a single-word reply: “Nuts!”. The Germans attack, and, miraculously, the tiny Allied force holds them off long enough for reinforcements to arrive and turn the tide of battle. Whoever wrote this episode obviously had never been within a thousand miles of an actual military.

Probably the worst part was the ending. The British/German story arc gets boring, so they tie it up quickly, have the villain kill himself (on Walpurgisnacht of all days, not exactly subtle) and then totally switch gears to a battle between the Americans and the Japanese in the Pacific. Pretty much the same dichotomy – the Japanese kill, torture, perform medical experiments on prisoners, and frickin’ play football with the heads of murdered children, and the Americans are led by a kindly old man in a wheelchair.

Anyway, they spend the whole season building up how the Japanese home islands are a fortress, and the Japanese will never surrender, and there’s no way to take the Japanese home islands because they’re invincible… and then they realize they totally can’t have the Americans take the Japanese home islands so they have no way to wrap up the season.

So they invent a completely implausible superweapon that they’ve never mentioned until now. Apparently the Americans got some scientists together to invent it, only we never heard anything about it because it was “classified”. In two years, the scientists manage to invent a weapon a thousand times more powerful than anything anyone’s ever seen before — drawing from, of course, ancient mystical texts. Then they use the superweapon, blow up several Japanese cities easily, and the Japanese surrender. Convenient, isn’t it?

And then, in the entire rest of the show, over five or six different big wars, they never use the superweapon again. Seriously. They have this whole thing about a war in Vietnam that lasts decades and kills tens of thousands of people, and they never wonder if maybe they should consider using the frickin’ unstoppable mystical superweapon that they won the last war with. At this point, you’re starting to wonder if any of the show’s writers have even watched the episodes the other writers made.

I’m not even going to get into the whole subplot about breaking a secret code (cleverly named “Enigma”, because the writers couldn’t spend more than two seconds thinking up a name for an enigmatic code), the giant superintelligent computer called Colossus (despite this being years before the transistor was even invented), the Soviet strongman whose name means “Man of Steel” in Russian (seriously, between calling the strongman “Man of Steel” and the Frenchman “de Gaulle”, whoever came up with the names for this thing ought to be shot).

(Hat tip to Buckethead.)

Dork Tower Is Film-Geeky

Monday, July 5th, 2010

John Kovalic’s Dork Tower isn’t just gamer-geeky:

That’s film-geeky. In case you’re not familiar with Sergei Eisenstein, master of montage, here’s the scene in question, from Battleship Potemkin:

The first homage to that scene that I remember seeing was in The Untouchables, but they’re everywhere. I suppose you could say that Shogun Assassin (Lone Wolf and Cub) inverts the trope.

No More Kings

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

I don’t actually remember this School House Rock “America Rock” number — No More Kings.

I do, on the other hand, remember the Shot Heard ‘Round the World — which has some historical content:

Fireworks is another one I don’t remember. The news boy looks familiar though:

It was a simpler time. An educational cartoon was allowed to illustrate “the pursuit of happiness” with a man chasing a woman.

Blue Monkey Hindsight

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

It’s easy to assume that causes like that of the Arabs in Palestine are indigenous movements, Mencius Moldbug says, which arise spontaneously and then attract influential foreign backers:

One notices, however, that the foreign backers often precede the indigenous movements. Which is the cause, and which the effect? If you invert the relationship, you get a very different political structure which seems to make a lot more sense.

Moldbug then geeks out a bit:

Before Sigourney Weaver got her mind-tentacles into the blue monkeys, I’ll bet they were perfectly happy to find a new sacred tree. The whole war was her fault. And the monkeys may be partying right now, but in fifty years they’ll be living in gang-infested shantytowns. District 9 is Avatar 2: Alien Aid. Blue monkey hindsight: throw Sigourney Weaver off the tree, as soon as she shows up. No war, no movie, happy monkey life with new views.

Wonder Woman Makeover

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

Comic books sell to a remarkably small — but hardcore — fanbase, but many of the characters are so iconic that their latest PR stunt can garner New York Times coverage. No, Superman hasn’t died (again). Wonder Woman has had a makeover:

In the reimagining of her story, Wonder Woman, instead of growing up on Paradise Island with her mother, Queen Hippolyta, and her Amazon sisters, is smuggled out as a baby when unknown forces destroy her home and slaughter its inhabitants.

Mr. Straczynski, who created the television show “Babylon 5” and wrote the screenplay for “Changeling” in 2008, starring Angelina Jolie, said in an e-mail message that he wanted to address “the wardrobe issue” as soon as he took the job.

“She’s been locked into pretty much the exact same outfit since her debut in 1941,” Mr. Straczynski wrote. “If you’re going to make a statement about bringing Wonder Woman into the 21st century, you need to be bold and you need to make it visual. I wanted to toughen her up, and give her a modern sensibility.”

The new costume was designed by the artist Jim Lee, who in February was named co-publisher of DC, alongside Dan DiDio. Given the assignment, “my first reaction was, ‘Oh my gosh,’ ” Mr. Lee said in an interview. But he welcomed the challenge: “When these characters become so branded that you can’t change things, they become ossified.”

The new look — with an understated “W” insignia, a midnight blue jacket and a flinty fusion of black tights and boots — is darker than the famed swimsuit-style outfit, and aims to be contemporary, functional and, as Tim Gunn of “Project Runway” might say, less costumey.

Given the hope that the character will one day have her own international film franchise (a feature has long been gestating at Warner Entertainment, DC’s parent company), one test of the design was to imagine how it would look standing next to, say, Batman’s politically neutral ensemble. “The original costume was the American flag brought to life,” Mr. Lee said. “This one is a little more universal.”

It’s always been odd that an Amazon from out of Greek mythology wore a star-spangled outfit, but does an iconic superhero really need a costume that’s less costumey?

The whole things seems remarkably reminiscent of a previous makeover that did not go well — which was apparently totally different in some unexplained way:

The new costume will almost certainly be better received than the curveball thrown Wonder Woman in 1968, when she lost her powers, dressed mod and practiced martial arts

Nazis in Spaaaaaaaace!

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

Somehow I missed the initial Iron Sky teaser, which came out two years ago and has since garnered 1.3 million YouTube views:

The Finnish filmmakers behind the trailer managed to bring in micro-investments from 52 fans and produced a second teaser trailer:

Now that the space-Nazi trailers have brought in funding, the film is going into production:

With 90 percent of the feature-length project’s $8.5 million budget now funded, casting for Iron Sky is nearly complete, with filming set to begin in Australia and Germany this fall.

CGI maestro Samuli Torssonen supervised Iron Sky’s visual effects after spending seven years working on zero-budget feature Star Wreck. For the Iron Sky trailers, “everything was either shot by ourselves or created by our VFX team at Energia Productions,” Torssonen told Wired.com in an e-mail. “I think for indie productions it is very important to have in-house creative which can archive visually impressive shots with a decent budget.”

Torssonen relied on Maya 3-D software to craft the trailers’ visual effects. “Every shot was filmed against blue/green screen in a local studio,” he said. “Every shot, of course, also had quite a lot of CGI.”

Fan investments in Iron Sky were augmented by money from 12 traditional financiers, according to producer Tero Kaukomaa of Blind Spot Pictures. “If we are able to make money,” Kaukomaa said, “then the crowd who invested will make money, and if that happens, it will speed up the possibility to fund films totally with crowds.”

But VFX man Torssonen cautions that “fan/community funding is not an easy way out. We didn’t come out of nowhere. We’ve been building our internet community and visibility since 1999, with Star Wreck. You have to invest a lot of time and energy to win the trust of the internet audience. The only way to do that is to deliver good quality. Mediocre stuff just won’t cut it.”

As a hybrid model blending conventional business cash with microdonations from sci-fi zealots, Iron Sky is emerging as the most expensive fan-curated movie to date. As such, it points the way toward a future in which audience and investor become one and the same.

“I think it’s great that the audience can, in some terms, ‘order’ a film that they find cool by investing, participating in the production or donating money,” Torssonen said. “They can give ideas and feedback, become part of the whole process, and finally see a film in theaters that has been tailored for their needs.”

This invites an obvious comparison:

How to Train an Animator

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

In 1935, Walt Disney wrote a letter to Don Graham, an art teacher from the Chouinard Art Institute on how to train an animator. This passage stood out to me:

The first duty of the cartoon is not to picture or duplicate real action or things as they actually happen — but to give a caricature of life and action — to picture on the screen things that have run thru the imagination of the audience to bring to life dream fantasies and imaginative fancies that we have all thought of during our lives or have had pictured to us in various forms during our lives. Also to caricature things of life as it is today — or make fantasies of things we think of today.

The point must be made clear to the men that our study of the actual is not so that we may be able to accomplish the actual, but so that we may have a basis upon which to go into the fantastic, the unreal, the imaginative — and yet to let it have a foundation of fact, in order that it may more richly possess sincerity and contact with the public.

The Guy Alternative to Disney

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Steve Sailer reviews Toy Story 3 — good, but not 1024 times as good as the original, despite the march of Moore’s Law — and comments on Pixar’s not-quite-Disney culture:

In 1986, Pixar delivered 90 seconds of perfection with Luxo Jr., a father-son tale about table lamps playing catch. In retrospect, it established Pixar as the guy alternative to Disney’s gay pandering to the daddy’s little princess market. Pixar movies are made by men who have managed to extend their childhoods (Lasseter says, “Every animator is a child at heart”) into fatherhood.

Electronics from 2010 as they would be marketed in 1977

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Alex Varanese re-imagines modern electronics from 2010 as they would be marketed in 1977:




Many artists have lazy eyes

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Ironically, many artists have lazy eyes:

By examining photographs of artists, Livingstone and her fellow researchers found that Andrew Wyeth, Edward Hopper, Marc Chagall, Jasper Johns, Frank Lloyd Wright, Robert Rauschenberg, Alexander Calder and others all had misaligned eyes. (And by studying the self-portraits and etchings of Rembrandt, she found he also seems to have had a strong lazy eye.) Why this pattern? She proposed that people who have less detailed three-dimensional vision of the world might have an easier time translating what they see onto the two-dimensional page — whether it was for a painting of a diner scene, sketch for a mobile or plan for a building.

What’s wrong with this painting?

Monday, June 21st, 2010

If you haven’t watched the Cars and Freedom ad, by all means do so now. Joseph Fouché applies his dry wit with this comment:

That was completely historically inaccurate. George Washington was a much younger man when he was driving Dodge Chargers against the British.

Well played, Fouché. Well played.

That comment, of course, is normally applied to the 1851 painting of Washington Crossing the Delaware, by Emmanuel Leutze:

We are accustomed to seeing General Washington as a wise older gentleman, very similar to the paintings done of him as President. At the time of the Crossing, George Washington was only about 44 years of age. He was still fairly young looking — at least not graying — according to the other likenesses of him done in the mid to late 1770′s by contemporary artists. The gentleman in Leutze’s painting shows us an older man than Washington was instead of the middle-aged man who would have been present at the crossing.

The crossing was also at night, in bad weather, in a Durham boat with high sides and no seats — so everyone would be standing safely inside the boat. Oh, and it’s doubtful they would have had the Betsy Ross flag at that point.

Hollywood’s Miscast Villain

Monday, June 21st, 2010

Alex Tabarrok explains why capitalists are miscast as villains in Hollywood features:

Hollywood’s anti-capitalism is not accidental. It stems from three sources: the rage of directors and screenwriters against their own capitalist backers, the difficulty of using a visual medium to depict the invisible hand, and an ethical framework which Hollywood shares with most of our culture that regards self-interest as inherently immoral or, at best, amoral.

Artists see capitalists as constraining their vision, rather than making it possible:

Capitalists work hard to produce what consumers want. Artists who work too hard to produce what consumers want are often accused of selling out. Thus even the languages of capitalism and art conflict: a firm that has “sold out” has succeeded, but an artist that has “sold out” has failed.

Painters don’t resent the capitalists who sell them paint, because they don’t need their backing. But filmmakers need capitalists for financial support, and so their resentment toward capitalists is especially strong. University of Illinois law professor and movie analyst Larry Ribstein has written a paper arguing that filmmakers enter “a Faustian deal” in order to produce their art. Filmmakers see themselves as selling a part of their artistic soul to make their movies, and naturally they rage against the devil doing the buying. It doesn’t take a Freud to see that some of this rage comes pouring out on the screen.
[...]
Although Hollywood does sometimes produce leftist films like “Reds,” it has no deep love for socialism (check out the Porsches in the Hollywood Hills). Hollywood’s communist and socialist period was based on the promise that in the socialist paradise artists would be liberated from the yoke of capital and freed to fulfill their visions. Even in Hollywood, however, few people take this promise seriously today.

But Hollywood does share Marx’s concept of alienation, the idea that under capitalism workers are separated from the product of their work and made to feel like cogs in a machine rather than independent creators. The lowly screenwriter is a perfect illustration of what Marx had in mind — a screenwriter can pour heart and soul into a screenplay only to see it rewritten, optioned, revised, reworked, rewritten again and hacked, hacked and hacked by a succession of directors, producers and worst of all studio executives. A screenwriter can have a nominally successful career in Hollywood without ever seeing one of his works brought to the screen. Thus, the antipathy of filmmakers to capitalism is less ideological than it is experiential. Screenwriters and directors find themselves in a daily battle between art and commerce, and they come to see their battle against “the suits” as emblematic of a larger war between creative labor and capital.

The invisible hand is hard to capture on film:

It’s hard to present the profoundly nuanced and intricate latticework of capitalism in two hours, which is one reason why one of the few works to attempt this is the five-season television series “The Wire.” As with so many other movies and television shows, the capitalists are vicious murderers. “The Wire” simply makes the stereotype more realistic by making its entrepreneurs drug dealers. But although it uses character, “The Wire” is ultimately about how character is dominated by larger economic forces: drug dealers come and go, but the drug market is forever. “Capitalism is the ultimate god in The Wire. Capitalism is Zeus,” says David Simon, the show’s creator.

Over its five seasons, “The Wire” shows how money and markets connect and intertwine white and black, rich and poor, criminal and police in a grand web that none of them truly comprehends—a product of human action but not of human design. It’s the invisible hand that’s calling the shots, as Mr. Simon subtly reminds us in the conclusion to the third season, when Detective McNulty wondrously pulls a book from the shelf of murdered drug dealer Stringer Bell, and the camera focuses in on the title: “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith.

Smith’s metaphor of the invisible hand, like Mr. Simon’s invocation of Zeus, tells us that to understand the world we need to look beyond the actions of individuals to see the larger forces at work. But Zeus is an arbitrary and capricious god whose lightning bolts fall out of the sky without reason or direction. Smith’s “invisible hand,” however, is that of a kinder god, a god that cares not one whit for individuals but nevertheless guides self-interest toward the social good, progress, and economic growth.

Hollywood wants its heroes to be virtuous, Tabarrok says, but it defines virtue to exclude self-interest:

If virtue means putting others ahead of self, then it’s clear that most people, let alone most capitalists, aren’t very virtuous. As a result, the one Hollywood defense of capitalism that everyone knows is Gordon Gekko’s speech from “Wall Street”: “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.” But even if Gekko’s defense has an element of truth, it’s uninspiring, which is why Gekko remains the villain of “Wall Street,” and not the hero.

Cars and Freedom

Friday, June 18th, 2010

This ad borders on self-parody, but it’s fun:

It’s a shame that our democratic self-government hasn’t delivered the same level of freedom we enjoyed under benevolent monarchical neglect.

Now, as much as I enjoyed seeing General Washington in a Dodge Challenger, I’m really waiting to see General Lee in a Dodge Charger. I can already see the custom paint job in my mind’s eye.

Digital Self-Publishing Shakes Up Traditional Book Industry

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

Digital self-publishing is finally shaking up the traditional book industry:

Fueling the shift is the growing popularity of electronic books, which few people were willing to read even three years ago. Apple Inc.’ s iPad and e-reading devices such as Amazon’s Kindle have made buying and reading digital books easy. U.S. book sales fell 1.8% last year to $23.9 billion, but e-book sales tripled to $313 million, according to the Association of American Publishers. E-book sales could reach as high as 20% to 25% of the total book market by 2012, according to Mike Shatzkin, a publishing consultant, up from an estimated 5% to 10% today.
[...]
This month, Amazon is upping the ante, increasing the amount it pays authors to 70% of revenue, from 35%, for e-books priced from $2.99 to $9.99. A self-published author whose e-book lists for $9.99 on Amazon’s Kindle e-bookstore will receive about $6.99 for each book sold. The author would net $1.75 on a similar new e-book sale by most major publishers.

The new formula makes digital self-publishing more lucrative for authors. “Some people will be tempted by the 70% royalty at Amazon,” Mr. Nash says. “If they already have a loyal fan base, will they want 70% of $100,000 or 15% of $200,000 for a hardcover?”
[...]
Today, the Kindle store accounts for about 70% of the U.S. market for e-books.
[...]
More than 90% of sales still come from physical books.
[...]
Digital self-publishing is attracting even top-selling authors. F. Paul Wilson, who writes the popular “Repairman Jack” thriller series published by Tor, an imprint of Macmillan, says he posted on Amazon five science-fiction novels published earlier in his careerat $2.99 each.

“This stuff was just sitting around, out of print, doing nothing,” says Mr. Wilson, who has written about 40 books. He thinks he’ll eventually make as much as $5,000 to $10,000 a month when he lists all his older titles.

Mr. Wilson doesn’t foresee abandoning print, but some authors do. Thriller writer Joe Konrath says that, as more consumers buy e-books, the economics will tip.

Under the pen name Jack Kilborn, he sold 50,000 copies of his last novel, “Afraid,” published by Grand Central Publishing, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, in all formats. He earned about $30,000. But if he sold it as an e-book on his own, he could make that much in 18 months by selling 800 e-books a month, he estimates.

Mr. Konrath says he’s already earning more from self-published Kindle books that New York publishers rejected than from his print books. In the past 14 months, he has sold nearly 50,000 Kindle e-books, and at the current royalty rate, he makes $58,000 per year from his self-published works. When Amazon royalties double this summer, he expects to bring in $170,000 annually.

“I’m outselling a bunch of famous, name-brand authors. I couldn’t touch their sales in print,” Mr. Konrath says.

Atlas Shrugged on a Budget

Monday, June 14th, 2010

An Atlas Shrugged feature has begun shooting — as a $5 million indie produced by John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow:

Cameras began rolling over the weekend on a five-week shoot for “Atlas Shrugged Part One” with Paul Johansson directing from Brian Patrick O’Toole’s script. Aglialoro would have lost the feature rights if the film wasn’t in production by Saturday.

A spokesman for Aglialoro — the CEO of exercise equipment producer Cybex — said there will be at least one more “Atlas Shrugged” shot after the current film’s completed.
[...]
Johansson (“One Tree Hill”) portrays Galt. The lead role of railroad executive Dagny Taggart has gone to Taylor Schilling (“Mercy) and the part of Henry Reardon is being played by Grant Bowler (“Ugly Betty”).

Michael Lerner (“A Serious Man”) portrays lobbyist Wesley Mouch and director Nick Cassavetes has signed on for the Richard McNamara role. Other key cast include Matthew Marsdan as James Taggart and Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt.

“Atlas” also stars Edi Gathegi, Jsu Garcia, Rebecca Wisocky, Ethan Cohn, Patrick Fischer, Neill Barry, Christina Pickles and Nikki Klecha.