Our Wide Open Future: The Sale of Your Information by Social Networking Sites

In a predictable move (for anyone paying attention), Twitter has sold the rights to index its user updates (tweets) to both Microsoft and Google.

Two separate announcements were made Wednesday October 21^st, and the moment passed without a pause in lives of Social Network-ers across the globe. First Microsoft declared at a technology conference in San Francisco that Bing.com (Microsoft’s new internet search engine), will provide services that allow individuals to search through various tweets without being part of the Twitter server. Within three hours of the announcement, Google revealed via its blog that its search engine had already secured those very same services.

Neither company divulged how much these rights – the rights to index millions of public updates ranging from the most mundane, “Just got done eating lunch” by a high school friend to the controversy-igniting headlines that dominate the celebrity news market – had cost them to obtain. It is distinctly possible, however, that these deals will represent the first significant revenue for Twitter, which would join the elite, money-making rank with social networking giant, Facebook, who recently announced their first profit since their 2004 launch.

When Microsoft first began advertising for Bing.com, veiling its attacks against Google as a “cure to search overload,” it seemed like a futile effort. To “Google” something is, after all, a verb in the Oxford English Dictionary. Few doubted that Microsoft’s puny projectile would do little more than scratch the surface of the Google Empire, but in the back of everyone’s minds was the understanding that the technology giant pressing the Big Red Button could never be counted out.

In this race for personal-update rights, Microsoft seems to have the upper hand. It launched a test version of the Bing-Twitter hybrid within hours of the announcement while Google is still promising that it will happen “soon.” Microsoft already handles Facebook’s intra-web search, and two years ago purchased a 1.6% share in the enterprise (a deal which cost Microsoft $240 million). On the other hand, Google has a nasty history with Facebook, in part because Facebook has lured away a few of Google’s top employees.

Business details aside, I feel a little unsettled. As if the fresh-yet-already-vicious competition between Microsoft and Google wasn’t enough to clog my advertising arteries, add to it the farcical wars over Best Social Networking Site and you get a lovely mash of terrifying irony.

Like many people in my generation and those generations above me, I often find myself disturbed about the treatment, mistreatment, and downright reckless treatment of personal information with the advent of the internet. It took a long time for social networking to overcome the public’s privacy fears, but with just the right tweaks it caught on like wildfire.

And why shouldn’t it? The ability to connect and reconnect with distant friends is one of the most valuable gifts the internet has given us. But in our rush to obtain this golden advantage, many of us unwittingly signed our souls away to companies that permanently own any private information or property that we choose to share, simply because we deluded ourselves into believing these pages were our personal sites. Or perhaps it wasn’t delusion. Perhaps we gave into the inevitable to gain the benefits we believed worthy of the sacrifice.

Beyond the fear that a potential employer will stumble on your old college drinking photos is the humbling and terrifying reality that our personal information is being sold for advertising purposes, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Grocery stores issue member cards that keep track of what you purchase. Internet retailers “suggest” products you might enjoy. Most of us sign up for accounts on various websites without more than glancing at the terms of agreement, and oftentimes these terms grant the website full right to use your image and information for profit.

While your personal preferences are being sold, social networking sites are also feeding the gluttonous belly of of the celebrity gossip monster. Clever journalists tear through celeb tweets, hoping for some shred of newsworthiness, and while they often do find it, they also tend to create it. I find celebrity gossip abhorrent, but the blinding velocity at which the vulture-journalists hurtle towards the bloated carcasses of celebrity-tweets embarrasses me. People treat 140-character sentences as real news, which it very nearly is in a perverted, paparazzi-esque sort of way. If you’re a famous athlete or the daughter of a political figure, it is irresponsible to have an account, but soon the vultures wont even need an account to find you – they can just Bing it.

Personal note - I just don’t feel like that one will catch on in the same way.

Even though this newest development in public indexing is barely a step above the current status quo, even though the current system does little to actually protect the privacy of its users against determined pursuers, it symbolically feels like a step too far for me.

We are entering a world where almost nothing can be kept secret, but it also seems that we’re entering one where few people seem to care. Identity theft is about money, not about our actual existential identity. We are freely expressing ourselves on the internet, fully aware that this expression is being publicized for the world to see. Do we pursue it because of a hidden desire for fame and attention? Is it because we feel we should have nothing to hide? I welcome your thoughts.

For myself, I wonder what this future holds for my generation. I can’t objectively understand what it means to live in a world where everything is out in the open, and information can be passed to thousands of people around the globe in less than a second, because it’s grown up around me. I wonder if it is truly as terrifying as I feel it is deep in the pit of my stomach, or if it’s just Halloween, and everything has me spooked. I won’t go so far as to invoke images of Big Brother and a distant war with Eurasia, but I will certainly stop to question: how worried should I really be about being on Facebook?

Continue...

Nights on Bald Mountain- the Summit: the Shining

Each day in October, intrepid blogger Alex Boivin will watch a horror movie. These movies are all new to him and are part of his month-long effort to fill in his gaps in the horror canon. If he doesn't die from fright, you just might get to read about about his exploits in cinema during the Halloween season.

I have a terrible confession to make: before 2:30 AM on Halloween 2009, I had never once sat through the entirety of the Shining. I was that scared of it. Friends will recall times we all sat down to watch it which resulted in me pansying out and making up excuses to leave early. I don't think I've ever done that with any other horror movie. And the worst part of it all? I own the Shining on DVD. And I don't just own it, I once lent it to a friend at college who forgot to give it back to me before the year ended and she went to Egypt for the next two semesters. During this time she also broke up with her boyfriend who I am pretty sure stole my copy. After all this, I still bought another copy to replace the missing one (probably so my Stanley Kubrick box set remained whole more than anything). Conquering the Shining has been my life's great quest, and last night at a midnight showing at the Willow Creek theater in Plymouth, MN I finally did it. I HAVE CONQUERED THE SHINING.

I won't even bother explaining the plot of the Shining for those of you who haven't seen it, not because its so well known or from laziness; this is just an incentive for you to get up and watch this amazing movie. It is legitimately the scariest movie I have ever seen and as you now know, I have seen a lot of scary movies. I don't think any other movie better uses sound and vision as a means of creating a truly terrifying atmosphere and making you scared at every moment of its two hours+ runtime. Kubrick makes even a hotel hallway scary as hell, even when there's nothing scary in it (though those things do show up). I'm still afraid of being alone in a long hallway after this movie, I think I'll have that fear my entire life.

And the Shining isn't just the best scary movie I've ever seen, it's among the best movie movies. It's just so well done in every aspect. Every actor, including the never-ceasingly-amazing Jack Nicholson, delivers an amazing performance. I can't even begin to find words to describe how great every single part of this movie is. It might even break my top 10 favorites overall. If for some reason you need a movie to watch at your place while you wait for trick-or-treaters to come to your door, run down to Hollywood Video and pick this one up. You won't be disappointed.

Final verdict: 90 Congos

And there it is people, I have scaled Bald Mountain. Thank you all for reading this and being part of my journey to conquer my lifelong fear of horror movies. Thanks to everyone who offered support or suggestions or criticism of my oftentimes ludicrous use of the Congo Scale. I am definitely up for doing this again next year but for the mean time, my Netflix queue is going to get some much needed rest from horror movies and I'm going to indulge in some Audrey Hepburn movies which I will not write about. I think I've earned it.

Continue...

Like Netflix? Own a PS3? You’re in Luck

I had heard rumors over on the Twitter, but now it’s official.  Sony has recently confirmed that, yes, Netflix streaming is coming to the PS3.

For the past year, Xbox Live members with a Gold subscription have been able to integrate their Netflix account with the 360, streaming movies and TV straight through Microsoft’s console.  It’s a feature also available to Netflix users on their PC, but it’s found success in the gaming market due to the average 360’s close proximity to a TV. 

Destructoid presumes that Microsoft had some sort of one-year exclusivity deal with Netflix, with the latter company having planned such horizon-broadening all along.

Initially, PS3 users will have to insert a specific disc into their system to run the Netflix program (though they’ve said they’re working toward a non-disc option).  An odd choice, it seems, for a service all about digital streaming.   Then again, a quick cost analysis renders the minor inconvenience of a disc irrelevant.  A one-disc-per-month, unlimited streaming Netflix account costs $8.95/month.  An Xbox Live Gold Account (currently a requirement for Netflix users) costs $50/year.  All of the PS3’s online functionality is free.  F-R-E-E free. 

This is about more than Netflix.  This is a shot off the bow of Microsoft’s monopoly on the console online space.  The PS3 – with its price drop, clever advertising, and recent slew of worthwhile first-party titles – is becoming relevant.  If Sony can continue to siphon off portions of Microsoft’s “premium” service, things should get really interesting.

Continue...

Stunt Position

If you remember Just Cause, you remember it for the cheesy faux-Che thing they had going on. To be fair, it was a third-person sandbox shooter released in fall 2007 – you know, the day of Bioshock, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, The Orange Box and Mass Effect. Yeah, that 2007.

Forget the story. The real reason to pick up this competent-to-good action title is the ludicrous concept of “stunt positions.” With the press of a button, your dear Agent Rico mounts the roof of whatever vehicle you’re in, crouching in a ridiculous ready-to-rock action pose. Flying a helicopter? STUNT POSITION. Now you’re hanging from the tail.

The concept of stunt positions extends well beyond actual stunts. If you are, say, plummeting from 10,000 feet, pressing the SP button near a moving vehicle will suck you towards said vehicle as if through a vortex; you end up safe and unharmed on the roof of a moving vehicle.

The physics are boggling, and watching a black-clad commando mount the roof of a truck falling down a cliff is nothing short of hilarious. If you’re looking for a chuckle this Halloween, download the demo and see what I’m talking about.

(Oh yeah, it’s getting a sequel).

Continue...

Making a List, and Checking It Twice

The end of the year is approaching fast. Actually…the end of the entire decade. And we all know what this means.

Well, it means the inexorable passage of time as our lives slowly fade away before our eyes and we progress toward the inescapable culmination of the human experience that is death. But, looking at things in a more upbeat (and pop culture-y fashion), it also means that we're going to be swimming through a plethora of "best of the decade" lists in the next few months.

Ninety percent of the time, we are only privy to the far inferior "best of the year" lists. But now, for the first time this millennium, countless writers and bloggers are going to try and quantify the top products of this decade. The best songs of the 00s? Movies? Books? Political scandals? From now until the end of the year, I'm sure that the discussion will be relentless, and countless readers and writers across the Internet will take this sort of thing very seriously.

One on hand, of course, these lists are rather silly. Can we really sum up the crowning points of the decade in a pithy top ten list? On the other hand, I'm a sucker for these sorts of lists. I think they lend themselves to great discussions, and are worth our time, as long as we don't take them too seriously. And it's that last caveat that brings us the most problems. When lists start defining themselves as "definitive", and people think that they represent some sort of holy canon, that's when we start to have issues.

I'll be honest - I love a good "best of" list, especially pertaining to pop culture. As I've been trying to teach myself the fundamental pillars of popular music, Acclaimed Music's amalgamation of critic's "best of" lists has been an invaluable resource. The annual Oscar nominations, while usually met with all sorts of criticism from across the Internet, has still pointed me toward several very good films that I would have otherwise missed entirely. And the New York Times' yearly "100 Best Books" list is usually pretty good for giving me titles to put on my Christmas list. At their best, these sort of lists can function as a pop culture road map, guiding the novice toward titles that, if not objectively the best, are at least the ones that are affecting the conversation in meaningful ways.

At the same time, these sort of lists make me worry. Are these lists too influential? I am sure that there are all sorts of great titles that they are missing. I worry that people will take these lists too seriously - at some point in the future, I imagine a future civilization digging up the remnants of America in 2005 and observing that we named Crash the best movie of the year. I hope they don't take our word for it. It's an embarrassing legacy to leave behind. Too many times, the "Best" is mistaken for the most inoffensive, or the work with the broadest appeal, regardless of quality.

Most of these lists are so broad, so intent on being "objective", that they just end up being bland and predictable. How many times have you read a "best of" list that concludes with "Stairway to Heaven" as the best song of all time or Citizen Kane as the best movie? These works might be deserving of the top spot, but it's always sort of an anticlimax to reach the end and realize that the same title that has topped lists for years is still on top.

Of course, the "best of the 00s" lists we're going to be getting here at the tail end of 2009 are going to come with their own set of problems. How do we objectively compare a movie that came out two months ago to one that we've had nine years to think about and assimilate into the cultural consciousness? On top of all this, the "aughts" have been curiously devoid of all-encompassing, decade-defining cultural moments. The music scene has become ridiculously fragmented, and there hasn't been a movie or TV show this decade to compare to the Titanic or Seinfeld crazes of the 1990s, for instance. Now, more than ever, "best of" lists have become a matter of personal opinion and subjective taste. The last ten years have been the decade of the 9/11 tragedy and Harry Potter. Other than that, any culturally relevant phenomena have been largely localized among a certain fraction of the populace.

So are these "best of" lists just a joke? Can they accomplish anything? Can any critic, or group of critics, claim to be able to definitively name the best works of a certain medium? Or are these lists just an inevitable circle jerk, as writers get another chance to parade their critical darlings to an all too accepting readership?

Well, I think it's important to keep in mind that no one, really, believes in these lists. Does anyone really think that the five (now ten!) movies nominated for Best Picture by the Academy are the five best movies of the year? That Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All-Time are, in fact, the 500 greatest songs? That the Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books of the Western World is the definitive list of the greatest books of the western world? I don't think so. But that's the point. These lists provide the grounds with which to begin a conversation. It's a good way to start a discussion, to get the reader (and the writer) to think about what qualities, exactly, are important for a work. Trying to determine if The West Wing is a better 00s show than Mad Men might seem like a fruitless exercise, but I think that this sort of thing is a positive exercise, even if there is no right answer. By considering the positive qualities of a work, as well as it's reception and influence, we start to think about what makes these works worth spending time with in the first place.

So, no, I don't think that any list is going to definitively sum up what, say, the best albums of the decade are. But I think that, by reading a few of these lists, we can begin to triangulate the cultural zeitgeist. And, certainly, reading a list that you disagree with is just as fun as reading one that conforms with your views completely. It gives us the opportunity to formulate our own opinions, to consider why we liked (or disliked) a specific work, and reflect on why a certain work somehow became wildly popular.

Just don't take these lists as written law. Read them, reflect on them, and argue with them. Hell, even make an attempt to write your own. It's a fun exercise. But remember that, in the end, there's not a good way to quantify comparative opinions. Take the lists with a grain of salt, and remember that there's probably loads of quality works that never made the cut.

Will we ever definitively determine what the "Best ___ of the Decade" were? No, of course not. But it's still a hell of a lot of fun to try.

Continue...

Bald Mountain Night 30: the Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Each day in October, intrepid blogger Alex Boivin will watch a horror movie. These movies are all new to him and are part of his month-long effort to fill in his gaps in the horror canon. If he doesn't die from fright, you just might get to read about about his exploits in cinema during the Halloween season.

Texas. Chainsaw. Massacre. To paraphrase the great Patton Oswalt, when you hear the title of this movie, you've already seen the whole thing in your head.

TCM is considered something of a landmark in the horror genre and regularly ranks among the "scariest horror movies of all time". I myself have seen the remake; it probably is the best example of the Freudian eros/thanatos concept- I was profoundly and deeply...moved by Jessica Biel running through the pouring rain in an inhumanly tight pair of jeans while simultaneously being terrified out of my skull by Leatherface.

As it's title would suggest, TCM is set in Texas (there's your first warning that this won't end well) and deals with a group of teens in a van (kinda like Scooby-Doo but with a guy in a wheelchair instead of a Great Dane!) who stumble upon a clan of hillbilly cannibals, including a chainsaw-wielding maniac with a mask made of human skin which gives his face an almost leather-like quality, who massacre them. But you probably could have figured that out on your own, couldn't you?

Everything I ever assumed about Texas Chainsaw Massacre turned out to be somewhat misleading. Based on hearsay and rumor and the Michael Bay produced remake, I assumed that it would be the most intense, goriest movie of all time. Director Tobe Hooper (who would go on to direct Poltergeist) was actually going for a PG rating (this was 1974, remember, before the age of PG-13) but got slapped with an R. The onscreen blood and guts is remarkably minimal; for a movie dealing with people being chainsawed to death, it's surprisingly restrained. The movie's terror comes more from our city folk fears of the violent, depraved country people and the universal phobia of being trapped and being reduced to the status of meat. That being said, the violence, while much of it is offscreen, is presented in a frank and brutal fashion; even without copious buckets of gore it is remarkably unsettling.

If there's one word to describe this movie, it might be "grisly". What more would you expect from Patrick Bateman's all-time favorite film?

Final Verdict: 83 Congos Continue...

Paranormal Activity, or Your Hype’s Scarier than Your Movie

Have you seen the commercials for Paranormal Activity? If you have, you might be under the impression that it’s a scary movie. In fact, this spot is actually titled “Scariest Movie.” These ads have been crafted to make you believe that theaters of people shrieked and screamed as they watched this ghastly thriller by first-time director Oren Peli.

You’ve been lied to. This movie isn’t scary. The activity involved is light on the para and heavy on the normal.

Paranormal Activity isn’t just normal. It’s abnormally bad.

More impressive than the movie itself is the improbable amount of prerelease hype. Paranormal Activity tore through the 2007 Screamfest Horror Film Festival and continued on to the Slamdance Film Festival. Then someone at DreamWorks gave it to Steven Spielberg, who nearly crapped his pants when the apparently haunted DVD locked his bedroom doors. He greenlit a remake, but when the original caused people to flee the theater in terror he decided to just release the thing as is. It was then given a scattered, small release, and Peli told fans of the film to sign an online petition of sorts campaigning for a wider release. I haven’t seen such outlandish scary movie marketing since The Blair Witch Project spawned a fake documentary on the SciFi (now SyFy) Channel.

The Blair Witch Project is a great place to begin a discussion of Paranormal Activity. The latter was made on a pittance compared to Blair Witch. Paranormal Activity was shot in a week, in the director’s home. Like Blair Witch, it employs a Found Film device: the movie is supposed to be footage discovered after a young couple attempts to document the supernatural events occurring in their home. Like Blair Witch, the script is largely improvised, which (like Blair Witch) leads to more-than-occasional ruts in the dialogue as the actors flounder, repeating themselves and running the conflict into the ground.

Unlike Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity lacks actual moments of terror. Persuaded by the commercials, I saw this movie on a Sunday afternoon, giving myself plenty of daylight to recover from what would surely be a frightening experience. The lights dimmed on a theater at 30% capacity. After the trailers wrapped up, there was no title screen. No Paramount logo. Just a title slate thanking the families of Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micah (Micah Sloat) for allowing the footage to be aired. 86 minutes later, after a lackluster conclusion and a lack of a credit roll, the same 30% blankly started at one another in the low light. Not one of us had made a peep. I had briefly uttered a concerned “Oh…” during what was arguably the most compelling part of the film (it lasted about thirty seconds). We filed out, the wind dragged sluggishly from our sails.

And that’s Paranormal Activity’s largest problem: it’s sluggish. The couple, Kate and Micah, suspect they’re being haunted. So Micah picks up a camera to record the spirit’s nightly activity. Each night, a different underwhelming event transpires. A door moves of its own accord. Lights go on and off. Footsteps sound on the staircase. It’s all rather…inactive. Until later on, when the demon (they’ve discovered it’s a demon now, apparently) kicks it into high gear by – wait for it – fluttering their bed sheets.

Taken as a strict montage of eerie occurrences, this might have unsettled me. It speaks to an old fear, that “Wait, did I just hear something?” feeling that’s been with us since the Stone Age. As the nights go on, stranger things transpire. Katie sleepwalks, ends up outside on the patio at three in the morning, with no explanation. In context, it could be mildly disturbing. But it’s not.

Each night is bookended by a day. And the days get progressively mind-numbing as the couple bickers over how to handle the demon. Should Micah keep recording? Why has this thing been following Katie all her life? These days often devolve into cyclical arguments with no resolution. Boring bridges to get us to the next boring night. “Let’s leave.” “We can’t, it will follow us.” “Let’s GO.” “I don’t feel like it.” It sounds like Beckett, but, trust me, this kind of boring has no meaning.

Much has been made of the film’s Less Is More aesthetic for its willingness to strip away horror movie clichés and replace them with simple moments of suspense. It’s a noble goal, but director Peli is not up to the task. The movie clips along at the speed of a glacier, the lackluster day scenes dissolving any potential energy hiding in the evening hauntings. A stronger, more coherent script might have summoned forth the latent themes of domestic fear or further explored how the threat of home invasion can tear a relationship asunder. Peli’s cinematography attempts to exploit the darkness by using the static bedroom shot to play a game of “Guess the Scare” with the audience. Midway through, I got tired of guessing what minutiae in the room would act up next. I wanted to be shocked. Instead, I was just sitting in the dark.

For such a dim film, there were a few bright spots. The scenes involving the psychic (earnestly played by Mark Fredrichs) were often comedic. When he informs them that the demon thrives on negative energy, Micah quips to Katie, “We should stop inviting your mom over.” Arriving later when the two are despairing about the malevolent ghost, the psychic balks. “I’m making things worse. I should leave.” I couldn’t help but laugh at how utterly screwed this unlikable couple was.

Paranormal Activity ends with one mildly surprising Boo! moment. If you were expecting anything more, I suggest you rewatch The Blair Witch Project. It should scratch that horror verité itch without frustrating the hell out of you. Or you can just watch the commercials. Their marketing success is what’s truly scary.

Continue...

Nintendo Goes New-DS Crazy

Nintendo today announced something that people had apparently been expecting – they’re releasing a new, amped up version of the DS in Japan, in the form of the DSi LL.

The LL has cameras, an SD memory card slot, and plays the same ol’ DS games that we’ve all come to know and love. Which is to say, there’s not much to differentiate this from the DSi that Nintendo released just one year ago, apart from the fact that it’s got bigger screens.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should probably say that when the DSi LL (North American release date TBA, and probably also there will be a slightly more Americanized name to go with it) hits our shores, I may just pick one up – my old DS Lite is looking a little long in the tooth, and since I rarely actually go anywhere with my DS the extra screen size will be a boon.

Thing is, though, this is the wrong response to the iPod Touch, which is partly to blame for Nintendo’s reduced profits this year.

The thing about the new, huge DSi is that it’s the wrong  product for the wrong time – it’s exactly the same as the existing DSi, except it’s a bit larger. Congratulations, boyos, it only took you five years to forget that people bought the DS because it was different.

After five years (going on six),the Gaming Public would not only forgive the introduction of a truly new handheld to the market, they’d probably welcome it. Maybe Nintendo has an ace up its sleeve for next November, but this year all it has is a gigantic pair of twos.

Continue...

Bald Mountain Night 29: Wild Zero

Each day in October, intrepid blogger Alex Boivin will watch a horror movie. These movies are all new to him and are part of his month-long effort to fill in his gaps in the horror canon. If he doesn't die from fright, you just might get to read about about his exploits in cinema during the Halloween season.

I maybe should have mentioned this, you know a month ago, but I am more than a little open to requests for this little feature of ours. Obviously it's too late to start sending them in now but keep that in mind when I inevitably pick this up again next October. For today's post, you have reader Kjersten to thank for suggesting this one. According to Kjersten, this movie "needs more exposure", and now that I've watched it, I can see why it hasn't exactly been exposed that much. That doesn't make it any less of a crime.

Wild Zero is a really hard movie to classify. It's the story of Ace, a rock 'n roll fanboy who saves the life of his favorite band Guitar Wolf (who play themselves). Because of this, he gets made their blood brother and is given a magical rape whistle that can summon them at a moments' notice. It's a good thing he has that magical rape whistle because before you can say "what the hell is going on?" a bunch of zombies show up. Thank God Guitar Wolf happens to have badass rock 'n roll powers! Along the way there are UFOs, a sexy arms dealer, yakuza, an evil club owner with a propensity for booty shorts and Dutch Boy haircuts, and more than a little accidental homosexuality. ROCK AND ROLL!!!

Wild Zero is something of a mash-up of a bunch of different genres- I wouldn't call it a comedy but I also wouldn't call it a zombie movie. Yes, there are plenty of funny moments and yes, there are plenty of zombies, but it's its own thing. You might as well call it a "crowbar movie" because so much time is spent on Ace's one man rampage against the zombie horde with a crowbar, Gordon Freeman style. If anything you could put it down in the storied genre of "batshit insane Japanese stuff". The zombies are pretty much unexplained (though there is a mention of a meteorite crashing down nearby and of course there are those pesky UFOs flying around) and are about as inconsequential as everything else going on. There's a lot going on here and none of it makes a lick of sense, though I guess that's kind the point. The whole affair is joyfully absurd and if you're wondering why a J-rock band (the music in this movie is awesome, btw) is so good at slaying zombies (and why all the vehicles in this movie shoot fire out the back like the Batmobile, or why Guitar Wolf's guitar neck conceals a katana, or why the bad guy can shoot laser beams from his eyes, or why literally any of this is happening) you're probably watching the wrong movie and I truly pity you.

Final verdict: 60 Congos Continue...

NBC’s Thursday Comedy Block: What’s the Deal With That?

Every Thursday, I sit down in front of my glowing magic picture-box for two hours because it makes me laugh.

NBC has had a hell of a time keeping four funny shows playing on Thursday nights since their mid-to-late-90s dominance of prime time, but this year I think they’ve got some good things going. None of their shows burn up the Nielsen boxes, but with the rise of Hulu and TV-on-DVD, ratings aren’t the only thing that keep TV shows on the air these days.

There’s really not much reason to keep vamping. This is a look at four comedies that air on NBC between 8:00 and 10:00 PM on Thursday nights: Community, Parks and Recreation, The Office and 30 Rock.

Hit the jump already, geez. I’m getting uncomfortable up here.

Community – This one’s about a group of people who, for one reason or another, end up in a Spanish study group together at their local community college.

An unlikely ensemble cast is the first thing you’ll notice if you tune into Community. Let’s round up the regulars: we have Joel “The Guy From The Soup” McHale as our male lead, opposite relative unknown Gillian Jacobs as his principal love interest. Next, a guy best known for his appearance in a McDonald’s commercial, the woman who worked at that Staples with Dwight in The Office’s third season, a writer from 30 Rock, the always lovely Alison “Trudy from Mad Men” Brie, and last and arguably (and surprisingly) least, Chevy Chase as The Old Guy. The British Stephen Colbert bats cleanup.

That cast does not go together on paper. Like, at all. And the cast has not yet gelled on-screen yet, either – so far, the show seems mostly content with putting different combinations of people into situations and letting things happen, which works better some weeks than others.

Give Community a couple of episodes, though, and it may just grow on you – the will-they-or-won’t-they thing between the two leads is stale and a bit forced, but the comedic chemistry between other characters is often pleasantly surprising. If Community can survive its first season (word has it that is has been picked up for a full 22 episodes this year), it may just develop into a solid comedy.

Parks and Recreation – This one used to be The Office Lite, but has blossomed of late.

Speaking of shows that barely survived their first seasons, Amy Poehler’s The Office sort-of-spin-off Parks and Recreation suffered critically and in the ratings in last year’s truncated six-episode season. Based purely on my thoughts about that first season (and excepting the pretty-good finale, which finally got around to showing some potential), Parks was renewed based mostly on the strength of its parent show.

It’s good that it was renewed, though, because in its second season Parks has found its legs. Letting the camera do something other than look at Amy Poehler the whole time is a good start, not because she’s unfunny but because there are plenty of excellent, understated performances on the show that deserve to be highlighted. Nick Offerman (as Amy Poehler’s boss Ron Swanson) in particular has a straight-faced delivery that makes every scene that he’s in.

Also a joy to watch is Chris Pratt as Rashida Jones’ ex-boyfriend Andy, who lives in a pit and regularly delivers one-liners that would make Homer Simpson jealous. “Listen, are we gonna talk about anything other than the lies that I told you?”

The Office – This one used to be about working in a boring office for a bad boss, but it isn’t really about that anymore.

For all of Michael Scott’s foibles and flaws, he seems to run a pretty tight office – show me a mid-range paper supply company that hasn’t lost any employees in six years and I’ll show you a statistical improbability. People leave and they get fired and they get promoted but they always come back. This job can’t pay that well.

Coming off of their solid but sometimes inconsistent fifth season, The Office is still funny but cracks are beginning to show. Central to the show’s slight “off-ness” of late is the writing staff’s war with the status quo. Like I said, it’s extremely unlikely that all of these people would still be working in the same office after six years, and the writers keep trying to cover this up with plotlines that make you feel like the times are a-changing when really they’re not. Said plotlines sometimes deliver a hefty comedic payload (the Michael Scott Paper Company arc) and some don’t (Pam goes to art school in New York, depriving the series of one of its regulars for six or seven long weeks).

In the end, what’s hurting The Office the most is not that Jim and Pam are in a happy committed relationship, or that Michael’s antics have gotten too over-the-top, but rather that fewer and fewer of The Office’s episodes actually involve the principal cast working in an office, interacting with one another in the context of doing things that one might actually do in an office. It is wandering too far away from its original premise.

Pam is now a paper salesman instead of a receptionist. There’s a new receptionist, who has been around for a ton of episodes without being developed much beyond “new cute girl.” Jim is now a manager, and one of the people he manages is his wife. These are just a few of the inter-office relationships that the show could mine for material, though I have a sinking feeling that the very-much-out-of-the-office-and-unthinkably-improbable tryst between Michael and Pam’s mother is going to get more screen time.

You’re a very funny show, The Office. Let’s just keep it from going off the tracks, okay?

30 Rock – This one has Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin in it.

This one just came back two weeks ago, and it’s hard to tell where it’s going to go. The season premiere was a little lackluster, featuring what felt like a hodgepodge of B-stories designed to give every character screen time instead of picking a strong A-story to focus on. Last week’s episode fared much better, bringing back the perennially hilarious Will Arnett in his recurring role as Jack Donaghy’s chief rival Devon Banks. “Bum bum buuuum!”

My bet is that 30 Rock will stay funny for as long as it’s on, but that it won’t make it past its fifth or maybe its sixth year. It’s one of those shows, like my much-beloved Arrested Development, that racks up the critical acclaim but never really finds firm footing in the ratings. Its star power keeps it above Arrested’s ratings level, but it’s just not the sort of show that stays on forever. We can only hope that something equally funny replaces it when its time comes.

All of these shows regularly air on NBC between 8:00 and 10:00 PM EST on Thursday evenings in the order in which they were written about. Is… is that even a sentence?

Continue...

Apple Sues God, Says Fruit of Knowledge Looks Too Much Like Beloved Logo

Apple never fails to amuse me.

Apple Inc. is “mounting a legal challenge” against Australian supermarket chain Woolworths over a logo dispute, saying their stylized W resembling a piece of fresh produce (it is a grocery store after all) looks too much like…well…an apple. As we all know, Apple Inc. owns the original idea of the fruit, and it therefore makes sense that it must leap to protect it.

The title of this brief comes from an MSNBC article found here, where you can see that this is not the first time Apple has been entrenched in a legal battle over its identifying icon. In fact, it’s at least the sixth time, though only five of those six conflicts had Apple on the offensive. Their logo-legal history began when they were ruthlessly attacked by Beatles’ company, Apple Corps, and the resulting settlement involved Apple promising never to enter the music business. In a second settlement with Apple Corps, Apple defended itself by arguing that that the public was smart enough to be able to distinguish between their logo and a more realistic-looking apple of a different color.

It would seem that Apple is making its current opinion on the intelligence of the public quite clear.

I highly recommend you take a look at the article – the history of Apple’s legal battles is pretty comical. The dispute against Australian pornographic channel Adults Only is my favorite.

To be fair, Woolworths’ did file a blanket trademark application, which would leave open the possibility of pasting its logo onto any imaginable product including retail, electrical goods and technology. This could, in theory, someday pit Woolworths in a direct and bitter competition with Apple, but you’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical. Even if it were true, I simply can’t envision many people buying a Woolworths brand laptop and complaining, “I can’t tell the difference between this green W and a grey graphic apple with a bite out of it!” But then again, sometimes I get Acer and Asus mixed up because they sound similar.

The designer of the Woolworths logo argues: “Based on this logic, [Apple] would have to take action against every fruit-seller.” I await the inevitable day when Apple decides that this is a brilliant idea.

Continue...

Bald Mountain Night 28: the Haunting

Each day in October, intrepid blogger Alex Boivin will watch a horror movie. These movies are all new to him and are part of his month-long effort to fill in his gaps in the horror canon. If he doesn't die from fright, you just might get to read about about his exploits in cinema during the Halloween season.

Dumb luck at its finest. I was actually out of options for movies today's feature due to an unfortunate little lull between Netflix deliveries and I had actually exhausted the horror movies available for instant viewing that I wanted to watch. I had my back against the wall and was going to have to resort to a copy of I Am Legend that I had downloaded two or so years ago and I really wasn't looking forward to that. As fortune would have it though, a friend and brother in cinephillia recommended this quaint little picture called the Haunting. I had it relegated to the bottom of my Netflix queue (I'm already planning for an October 2010 follow up, you see) when out of nowhere at 11:00 PM Central Standard Time on my beloved Turner Classic Movies there it was, 1963's the Haunting. So instead of an inevitably disappointing write-up of a Will Smith movie, you can get a slightly more enthusiastic write-up of what Robert Osborne calls a "classic spook picture".

The Haunting is your basic haunted house story. A group of four people elects to spend a few nights in the infamous Hill House, a mansion with a morbid history of deaths, suicides, and strange occurrences. There's Eleanor- a woman grieving over the recent passing of her overprotective mother, Luke- the cocky, skeptic current owner of the house who keeps bragging about how much he can sell it for, Theodora- a strong, independent woman (old Hollywood code for "lipstick lesbian") with possible ESP, and Dr. John Markway- an anthropologist seeking to prove the existence of the supernatural. Things start out well enough but soon there are strange sounds and the house itself seems to be alive and its affecting the fragile Eleanor in particular.

The Haunting might be considered a counterpoint to the previously reviewed Vincent Price movie House on Haunted Hill (in fact, Haunting is based on the book the Haunting of Hill House, just try and not confuse those); where Haunted Hill is a schlocky B-movie Haunting is an actual drama. Where Haunted Hill's characters are all ridiculously insidious at worst or boring at best, Haunting makes an effort to actually develop its cast, especially the protagonist Eleanor, who treats the audience to a series of Dune-style interior monologues. Throw in a third act appearance by my boyhood crush Lois Maxwell and you've got yourself a movie! There's also much more of an element of psychological terror than up front gore and scares, which is always nice for movies like this, I guess. The Haunting is proof that old school horror movies don't need to be over-the-top and silly to be enjoyable, they can also be scary.

Final verdict: 64 Congos Continue...

In A Moment of Kindness, Sony Remembers the Consumer. It Matters.

I had a strange thought while watching a commercial for Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. It went like this.

That looks really sweet. Too bad it’s a PS3 exclusive. Hmph.

…Maybe I should buy a Playstation 3.

Bolt from a blue sky. I’m not a devotee of any console of this current generation, but let it be said I own an Xbox 360. Despite an astonishing rate of failure upon launch, it still managed to outstrip its main rival, the PS3 (we’re not talking about the Wii, here; economically, it exists in a no-zone of soccer moms, physical therapists and ‘casual’ gamers). While the Xbox 360 became a runway for blockbuster AAA titles, Sony tried to justify an unprecedented $599 price tag and an underwhelming stable of games.

Nearly three years after releasing the PS3, Sony is trying to reverse its prize pony’s seemingly grim fate. And how? They dropped the price. They’re filling the calendar with promising games. And they’re making gamers like me consider their bank accounts.

Let’s be clear: The PS3’s failure had little to do with the system itself. It remains the most powerful console on the market, and unlike Microsoft’s system, it has a remarkably low rate of failure (it doesn’t have an acronym to describe its tendency to go tits-up). Out of the box, it was a console to smoke the competition.

But all the shiny parts under the hood came at a cost. Sony must have been confident that the (still) unprecedented success of the PS2 had won them an unshakable share of the market – that’s the only way I can imagine them justifying a $599 price tag. At launch, the PS3 was $200 more expensive than the Xbox 360, which was available in a stripped-down $299 configuration.

Call it hubris, call it a leap of faith – it didn’t work. Even as 360s caught on fire and red-ringed their way across the years, the PS3 failed to compete. Exclusive titles like Metal Gear 4: Guns of the Patriots couldn’t even come close to justifying the price tag. Perhaps most damningly, screen-by-screen comparisons with the Xbox 360 failed to reveal much of a difference in quality – if anything, the PS3 suffered in comparison. Valve Software officials publicly shunned the console. Sony grew more clustered and hyperbolic in tone, trumpeting their success from the ramparts as they retreated deeper into their own delirious Xanadu.

Then, finally, someone wised up – or surrendered. In September 2009, Sony released the PS3 Slim. It was smaller, quieter. It played Blu-Ray. With a 120GB hard drive, it had twice the space as the launch product. At $299, it was half the price.

The gambit worked. September sales figures show Sony smashed it out of the park, shifting 492,000 slims in America (it broke a million worldwide in its first three weeks). Sony of America President Jack Tretton said PS3 sales were up 112 percent from last year. The slim edged out its competitors for top-selling non-handheld console by a considerable margin, Nintendo’s Wii trailing behind by 30,000 units.

Is Sony resurgent? Yes. But success is fickle, and the view outside of September is far less sunny. Not only that not only is Sony lagging in year-to-date sales, it’s lagging behind its own 2008 performance. A killer app like Uncharted 2, married to a radical price reduction, could greatly boost holiday sales; but the killerest apps like Modern Warfare 2 and Assassin’s Creed II are pan-system. Left 4 Dead 2, a Valve title, is exclusive to the 360.

Tellingly, Sony has returned to the ramparts to shout more delirious nonsense. The price cut, Tretton said, was not due to shit-poor sales. And as PS3 Slims flew off the shelves, Tretton eased into his king-of-the-world mentality as if it had never left, claiming that the PS3’s (hypothetical) dominance is good for the industry. Sony had only just begun, he later said, with an “onslaught” of great titles hitting soon.

Onslaught. What is this, a Zerg Rush?

Be they arrogant, hubristic or just plain insane, September could mark a turning point for Sony. Sure, they sell every Slim at a loss, but for the first time since launch, the PS3 is competing with its peers and making itself accessible to the full spectrum of buyers. Sony has rightly recognized that the success of their product depends not on what’s under the hood, but what’s in our wallet. They realized that a reversal in fortune must start consumer-side, and we rewarded them in kind with a 112 percent sale spike.

Tomorrow, I will not rush to Gamestop and put down $359.98 for a PS3 Slim and Uncharted 2. But I thought about it more than once. Even if my hand stops before it reaches my wallet, it was heading there, and that’s the most Sony ever got out of me.

Continue...

World Series Preview

Let me officially be the first Charge-Shot!!! writer to offer my congratulations to the New York Yankees for earning a place in the 2009 World Series of Baseball! The heavily favored Yankees defeated the Orange County Angels of Way Out in the Boonies in game 6 of a best-of-7 series on Sunday night. This will be the Yankees' 40th appearance in the Fall Classic, out of which they've won 26 times, both Major League records by a huge margin.

The Yankees will face the reigning champion Philadelphia Phillies, who handily defeated the Los Angeles Dodgers 4 games to 1. They will be phighting for just their third World Series title in a franchise history that extends back to 1883. They are also looking to be the first National League team to repeat as champions since the mid 1970s.

The series will air on the Fox network starting tomorrow (Wednesday), forcing them to jumble up their schedule which includes such hits as the new scripted musical-comedy "Glee," competitive reality favorite "So You Think You Can Dance," and veteran drama "House." This fall, Fox saw a 5% rise in viewers, including a 10% jump in the coveted adults 18-49 demographic, and they hope to continue the trend with coverage of the biggest sporting event of the fall season. In previewing the World Series, I won't bore you all with statistics and predictions and advanced metrics. What I will do is give a brief profile of some of the key players on each team and outline some of the recent history that brought them to where they are today.

The Yankees have been one of the most dominant teams of the last decade and a half, thanks largely to consistently posting the highest payroll in the game. (Their team cost over $208 million this year, $62 million higher than the second place Mets, and almost $97 million higher than the eighth place Phillies.) But their big spending has paid big dividends: since 1995 the George Steinbrenner-owned team has missed the playoffs only once.

Where does all this money go, you ask? To big name free agents, of course. The Yanks always seem to sign the biggest players whose contracts expire any given off-season, and 2009 was no different, even in this crippling recession. The Yankees made three key signings this year: switch-hitting, slick-fielding first baseman Mark Teixeira, hard-throwing righty pitcher A.J. Burnett, and 6'7" 290 lb. lefty hurler C.C. Sabathia - perhaps the winter's most coveted free agent.

Here's how much money the Yankees have: C.C. Sabathia grew up in California and made it known that he would have preferred to sign with a team closer to his hometown - namely, the Dodgers or the Angels, the only teams in the area willing to meet his lofty price tag. But the Yankees made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Or, more to the point, they made him an offer his union rep couldn't refuse. The guys from the union basically said, "Look, C.C., the Yankees' contract blows all your other offers out of the water. No matter where you would prefer to pitch, if you don't take this astronomical offer, it's gonna make all us guys in the Players' Union look bad." So in the end, the money won out, and Sabathia won 19 games for the Yankees, leading the league.

But it's not just big name free agent signings that have kept the Yankees competitive for so long - the group of longtime Yankees known as the "Core Four" has been contributing since before I was old enough to know what "RBI" meant. Shortstop Derek Jeter, everyone's favorite baseball playboy, power hitting catcher Jorge Posada, and untouchable closer Mariano Rivera have all three played with the Yankees for 15 years running. Starting pitcher Andy Pettitte, who broke into the majors the same year (1995) as the previous three, is back with the Yanks after a three-year stint pitching for his hometown Houston Astros.

But the Yankees' secret weapon during the 2009 post-season has been Alex Rodriguez. Notorious for his lousy performance in playoffs past, A-Rod has finally started playing great baseball in October. Maybe admitting to steroid use has allowed him to play with a clear conscience for the first time since he started juicing as a teenager.

The problem for the Yankees has been finding more than three pitchers to start games for them. Usually baseball teams employ a five-man rotation, giving each starter four days to rest his beleaguered arm before pitching again. In the playoffs, since the stakes are higher and five good pitchers are hard to come by, teams usually drop that number to four. The Yankees, however, have been marching out C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Andy Pettitte in that order since the start of the post-season. It's seemed to work for them so far, but we'll see if fatigue starts to set in.

The Phillies have no such problem with their pitching. The acquisitions of last year's AL Cy Young award winner Cliff Lee and aging legend Pedro Martinez gives them five solid starters, one of whom (rookie J.A. Happ) will likely be used exclusively as a reliever. Pedro has built up quite a rivalry with the Yankees during his years pitching for the hated Boston Red Sox, which culminated in Martinez calling the Yankees his "daddy" in 2004. We'll see if wearing a new uniform will help the future hall of famer pitch any better against the Bronx Bombers.

Offensively the Phillies are totally stacked. They have a group of homegrown players comparable to the Yankees "Core Four" - cocky shortstop Jimmy Rollins, gargantuan slugging first baseman Ryan Howard, quietly superb second baseman Chase Utley, and speedy center fielder Shane Victorino - but all four are hitters in their prime who currently sit at or near the top in many key offensive categories. Add to those guys right-fielder Jayson Werth, who has found his power stroke this season, and left-fielder Raul Ibanez, a key off-season pickup with an undeniable resemblance to Lord Voldemort. All these great hitters contributed to a lineup that led the league in Home Runs, Runs scored, and Runs Batted In (RBI). Every spot in the Phillies' lineup is a threat, and I do not envy the Yankees' pitchers having to face them in either ballpark in which the World Series will be played.

Why do the ballparks matter? Well, in case you didn't know, the dimensions of the outfield walls are not uniform for every Major League stadium. The distance from home plate to the mound (60 ft., 6 in.) and between the bases (90 ft.) are always the same, but the distance from the plate to the outfield walls varies from park to park. Thus, because of their particular dimensions, some fields favor batters and some fields favor pitchers. Both the Phillies' home field (Citizens Bank Park) and the Yankees' home field (New Yankee Stadium, in its first year since its recent construction) are notorious hitters' parks - despite the Phillies' unbelievable offensive attack, the Yankees hit even more home runs thanks in part to their miniscule home ballpark. For now, I will remain silent on the circumstances that led to the parks being designed in this way and the benefits/detriments of not having uniform park dimensions; but either way, we're sure to see some high scoring games.

The biggest weak point for the Phillies this season has been the back end of their bullpen. When a pitcher (known as the Closer) enters a game in the last inning (9th) with a slim lead (3 runs or less) and preserves that lead until the end of the game, he earns a prestige stat called a "Save." If he enters the game in the same situation and gives up enough runs to lose a lead, he gets a shame stat called a "Blown Save." Last year (2008), Phillies' closer Brad Lidge didn't blow a single save in 48 chances including the playoffs. He was perfect; he did his job 100% of the time. This year, however, Lidge had 11 blown saves, most in the majors. So in the span of one season, he went from the league's absolute best relief pitcher to the league's absolute worst. Somehow he's escaped disaster this post-season, but if Phillies manager Charlie Manuel keeps rolling the dice with him in close games, we'll see how long the fairy-tale lasts.

So there you have it, dear readers: strengths, weaknesses, and key players for each team involved in Baseball's biggest stage. If any of you happen to catch any of these games on TV, I hope some of the context/background information from this post will help enhance your enjoyment of them.

The World Series airs on the Fox Network at 8pm ET.
Continue...

Bald Mountain Night 27: Trick 'r Treat

Each day in October, intrepid blogger Alex Boivin will watch a horror movie. These movies are all new to him and are part of his month-long effort to fill in his gaps in the horror canon. If he doesn't die from fright, you just might get to read about about his exploits in cinema during the Halloween season.

Halloween ranks right above St. Patrick's Day and right below Christmas on my list of favorite holidays. I. Freaking. Love it. I love to go all out; costumes, decorations, parties, I would trick-or-treat if you could guarantee me that concerned parents wouldn't have me arrested. Anyone who knows me will tell you that my annual Halloween costumes rank among the best, none will contest my complete and utter dominance of All Hallow's Eve. Therefore, a movie like Trick 'r Treat is tailor-made for a guy like me. It's all about celebrating the holiday and righteously punishing those who don't observe it.

Loosely inspired by director Michael Dougherty's 1996 animated short "Season's Greetings", Trick 'r Treat is an anthology film that takes place in a small Ohio town on that night of nights. It's sort of like a horror movie version of my other seasonal favorite Love, Actually (shut up); all the stories are intertwined and connected by the celebration of Halloween. There's the story of a couple (whose male half is played by Helo!) who learn the hard way not to take down their Halloween decorations before November 1st, a school principal (played by world-class "that guy" Dylan Baker) with a homicidal love for Halloween, a group of junior high kids who visited the haunted site of an urban legend that may have more truth to it than they realize, a fully-clothed Anna Paquin looking for love or something like it at a Halloween party, and a grouch (the kind who literally shouts "get off my lawn!" at trick-or-treaters) played by Brian Cox who gets a lesson in Halloween etiquette. All of these are tied together by a sinister-looking trick-or-treater named Sam (as in "Samhain") who embodies the spirit of the holiday.

Trick 'r Treat was slated to be released theatrically in October 2007, but for one reason or another was pushed back two years and banished to direct-to-DVD purgatory. I first heard about it when its trailer popped up on my DVD of 300 (shut up) and when it was finally released on DVD this month I was at first wary of it; if it's a direct-to-DVD movie, it must be bad, right? Well that was before I read the reviews, which have pretty much all been astounding. I'm glad to see this one is developing a cult following, it certainly deserves one, and if there's any sort of just deity reigning over the universe Trick 'r Treat will become required viewing every year come October.

Final verdict: 60 Congos Continue...

This Week on Audiosurf Radio – An Ohioan Returns Edition

Back in April, I rode and discussed five songs by Ohio native Josh Woodward.  This week I learned that he’s still at it.  He recently released Breadcrumbs, another full album of indie guitar available for free download on his website.  What a nice guy to keep it all so affordable! 

This week’s fourth track comes from Australian funk keyboardist Sam McNally.  According to SamMcnally.com, he’s worked with Air Supply.  I don’t know if I’m jealous or just plain bemused.

Just like last time, Woodward’s songs cover a variety of styles and influences.  McNally’s “RabbitFunk,” however, is pure unadulterated 80s-style funk. 

Hit the jump to find out which are worth a ride.

Recommendations

“Swansong” is a song about how difficult it is to let go and move on.  And man do I just want to give Woodward a hug.  His cute, sort-of-cheesy voice just sounds so vulnerable.  I’m not sure I quite understood from the lyrics why he was so hurt (presumably a girl was involved), but I couldn’t help feeling for him.  There’s also a lot going on here musically.  A banjo twangs throughout.  A glockenspiel rings gently over harmonized vocals (a sound that reminds me of the Scottish indie-pop band Aberfeldy, which Rob once mocked me for having in my iTunes).  The eclectic, upbeat style might appeal to fans of the Barenaked Ladies or Sufjan Stevens.  The track picks up as the bridge explodes out of the second chorus with a driving quarter note pattern in the rhythm section.  It’s a technique I often here in less complex hard rock/metal songs, so it’s certainly a surprise to hear it in the singer/songwriter realm.  Woodward’s trying all sorts of things on this one.  And while it doesn’t all gel (I’m still not convinced the banjo fits), he should be commended for the effort.

Sam McNally’s “RabbitFunk” was a wise inclusion on this week’s tracklist.  It couldn’t be in more diametric contrast to the poppy guitar and banjo of Woodward.  It’s got electric keyboard, some sort of synth slap bass, a rollicking drum beat, and a roaring saxophone.  The sax has that goofy 80s sound, the kind that would bubble up for no reason in 80s pop songs.  I generally recommend jazz/funk tracks whenever I can because I think the structure works well for riding.  The solos, when good, are often inventive and entertaining, and the act of comping usually prompts the drummer and keyboardist to keep the background interesting.  The staggered chords fly overhead as tunnels.  The frantic drums lay out a sinister amount of traffic.  Meanwhile, you’re treated to a spiraling saxophone solo made even more hilarious when you imagine that it’s a horse behind the reed.  You should definitely play this song, even though I have two gripes.  First, it’s too short; I wanted more solos, perhaps from the other instruments.  Second, when the keyboard effect rings out and echoes, it sounds like the synth sound from “Wonderful Christmas Time.”  Totally weirded me out.

Other Selections

If you listened to “Swansong” and assumed you’d heard the entirety of Woodward’s range, you’d be wrong.  “I’m Not Dreaming” is a kind of grandiose his other stuff never dares approach.  It features humongous sweeping guitar chords rich with crunchy distortion.  There’s nothing saccharine or overly poppy here.  Unfortunately, the lyrics can’t hold a torch to the wonderfully over the top music.  It’s some kind of modern war ballad, with lines about paranoia and insomnia after witnessing terrible atrocities.  Not a bad idea for a song, though not terribly original.  And the words just weigh it down: “If God isn’t dead, then I’ll kill him myself,” he promises.  A bit blunt, if you ask me.  “Stars Collide” features the same level of precise songwriting coupled with the same amount of bland lyrics.  There’s a worthwhile sentiment in “Everybody’s alone/Everyone’s on their own.”  But it’s terribly unspecific.  His instrumentation, as usual, is intriguing – the glockenspiel makes a return.  And again, he crafts a bouncy bridge that’s a joy to ride.  I just want Ben Folds to be his mentor.  Woodward’s voice would work well in a Folds-esque character song.  It’s earnest and clear enough to properly support the emotions in his words.  He simply needs tighter words.

Author’s Note

All songs were played on the Pro difficulty using the Eraser and Vegas characters.  I didn’t realize until the second or third song that Josh Woodward was a familiar face.  He still strikes me as a guy taking cues from Ben Folds and Sufjan, both positive musical role models.  His lyrics often don’t feel in line with his inventive take on pop, but the talent’s there, for sure.

Continue...

At the Mountains of Madness- Part Eleven: "The Gypsy and the Hobo"

As you're no doubt aware, the title of this week's episode is a reference to such timeless rock standards featuring dualities as Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" ("said the joker to the thief") and more importantly Hüsker Dü's classic "the Tooth Fairy and the Princess" off of Zen Arcade. I fully expect more Hüsker Dü presudo-references to spring up as the show's timeline creeps closer and closer to the 1980's. That or the title refers to what Sally and Bobby dressed up as for Halloween 1963, but I think this show is a little more subtle than that, don't you? Also, second Mad Men episode with "hobo" in the title.

A big secret's out this week so pour yourself a big bowl of Caldecott Farms dog food (it's made from ponies, and it's delicious!) and jump ahead.

Our first plotline this week concerns our man Roger Sterling and his foibles with old flame/dog food heiress Annabelle Mathis. The recently widowed Mathis has come back to Sterling Cooper after years of absence seeking a revamp of her company, Caldecott Farms' image. You see, it's recently been revealed that dog food is made from horses and Annabelle wants the boys and girl at S-C to find a way to make people comfortable with that. She wants a "beef" or "pork" word for horse meat, Don seems to think that she would be better off scuttling the brand name and coming up with a new one that isn't "poison" to consumers. No matter what you call it, the product remains the same, just like a certain veteran of the Korean War we know and love. Annabelle is awfully flirty with newlywed Roger and seeks to rekindle their Lost Generation romance. We learn a lot about Roger here, namely that he was an amateur pugilist in inter-war Paris. Sweet! I really thought this would be the straw that broke the camel's back and that Roger would finally drop this goody-two-shoes act that he's been putting on since the end of Season Two but alas, Roger seems to really mean it when he says he loves Jane and turns Annabelle away. Eegads! He's a changed man! On the other hand, he had a pretty emotionally loaded phone conversation with Joanie...

Everyone's favorite redhead is still unhappily married to Greg Harris, failed surgeon and successful rapist. Greg's trying to begin a new career and fulfill his "dream" of becoming a psychiatrist due to the fact that he's let far too many patients die under the knife. Joan's doing her best to find herself a job to support the two of them during this awkward transition period, mainly due to the fact that Greg spends most of his time bitching and moaning about how entitled he is. This of course leads Joan to do what every viewer has been begging her to do since Greg raped her in Don's office last year: she bashes him over the head with a vase. Somehow, this jars him into enlisting in the Army as a surgeon. So now Dr. Rape will become Cpt. Rape. Congratulations, Mad Men viewers, you have your first Vietnam casualty.

And of course, here's the big one: Betty confronts Don about the Shoebox of Damocles. After consulting with the family lawyer about possible divorce options on a visit to brother William's family (the "Fall of the House of Hofstadt" saga continues!), Betty corners Don and drills him about the mysterious pictures, Anna Draper divorce papers, and deed for a house in California. Don spills the beans on everything and even cries (for those of you playing the Mad Men Drinking Game at home, finish your Old Fashioned). In the end, it seems like an equilibrium has been found in the Draper household and it's agreed that Don's Big Secret will never be spoken of again. Don even breaks it off with Miss Farrell for the time being, whose possible exposure in the car was one of the most tense sequences I've ever endured while watching television. I suspect she'll show up in the next two episodes to torment Don for breaking her heart, Fatal Attraction-style. But that's just my opinion, remember she's got an epileptic brother with few scruples! Continue...

Charge Shot!!! predicts: Blu Ray? No way!

We touched upon this one a bit in our truncated podcast yesterday – last week, Microsoft’s Steve “batshit crazy” Ballmer mentioned the Xbox 360 and Blu Ray in relatively close proximity to one another in conversation with a tech journalist.

Whatever he really said is not important – the story that The Internet ran was that Steve Ballmer confirmed that a Blu Ray add-on for the Xbox 360 was on its way. As happens with many Internet rumors, Ballmer later issued a clarifying statement denying that Microsoft was working on such a thing.

A couple of weeks ago, Apple’s rumor mill was a-churning, and many speculated that Apple’s upcoming refresh of its popular iMac was going to have a Blu Ray drive as an add-on component. Lo and behold (seriously, you guys, lo and behold it), Apple’s refreshed hardware came out last week with nary a mention of the technology that Steve “secret liver transplant” Jobs once called a “bag of hurt.”

Allow me to put on my turban and dig my crystal ball out of my sock drawer – I don’t think that Blu Ray is going to come to either of these devices. Ever. Am I freaking you out yet?!

Let’s review the facts: The Xbox 360 is a high-definition video game console that increasingly positions itself as a home entertainment center. Microsoft once released an HD-DVD add on for the console – sales were never fantastic, and when Blu Ray “beat” HD-DVD as the high-definition format of choice, prices dropped through the floor and Microsoft swept it under the rug.

And yet, even though Blu Ray drives and devices are beginning to dip into the realm of what might be considered “affordable” for the average person, there’s no Blu Ray add-on planned.

More facts: Apple’s new iMacs use new 16:9 aspect ratio LCD displays, instead of the 16:10 displays used in their Macbook line and in many PCs – 16:9 is the aspect ratio used in widescreen televisions. This switch is particularly suited for movies and widescreen TV shows, which are released to the home video market almost exclusively in 16:9.

Apple is playing up this “aspect” of their new iMacs, and is even promoting them (and their admittedly gorgeous, TV-sized 27-inch displays) as high-definition movie-watching computers of choice. And yet, no Blu Ray option, not even in the very highest-end models.

The continued exclusion of Blu Ray from these devices at this late date, long after the “format wars” between HD-DVD and Blu Ray have reached a decisive conclusion, seems significant, almost pointed. Why are these two companies keeping what is supposed to be the high-definition platform of choice out of their premier high-definition devices?

It’s pretty obvious – both Microsoft and Apple are washing their hands of disc-based high-def, in favor of shows and movies that are either downloaded or streamed. Think about it – Microsoft offers most major network TV shows for download on the Xbox, and Microsoft’s partnership with Netflix makes their entire streaming library available to Xbox users – these movies will stream in high-definition if they’re available, and if your connection is fast enough.

Apple, likewise, has the iTunes store setup to handle their high-definition video, and they’re putting a lot of time, money and effort into making the iTunes video store just as successful as the iTunes music store has been.

And why would either company want to put a Blu Ray drive in their devices anyway? It would increase costs and require them to pay licensing fees to Sony, a direct competitor in the video game and home computer markets – all of this for a format that’s still having trouble gaining traction, given that its benefits over DVD are nowhere near as great as DVD’s benefits over VHS.

We’re also seeing the beginning of disc drive-less devices, not just from Apple in the Macbook Air and the new top-end Mac Mini model, but from Dell in their thin-and-light z-series notebooks, and in nearly every netbook under the sun. Just as the floppy drive began disappearing from computers in the early 2000s, the optical drive is beginning to fade, to be replaced by digital downloads, video streaming sites like Hulu, and gigantic, dirt-cheap flash drives.

It has gotten to the point where I facepalm in disbelief whenever I see another rumor about Blu Ray in the Xbox or in the Macs start up – that ship has sailed, guys. It has become clear that Apple and Microsoft intend to ignore Blu Ray to the greatest extent possible, and that we’ll see Xboxes and Macs without optical drives before we’ll see them include Blu Ray.

You know. Probably.

Continue...