Entertainment

Is CGI what makes a Blockbuster?

The answers to the director's quiz are below this posting, but lets get on with the question in hand. Whilst coming back from Ecuador I managed to watch on the plane "Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End". Now I really enjoyed the film, but couldn't help thinking, strip away the special effects and what have you got?? A film that is thinly plotted, and overlong. So do the special effects make the film or does the story??



Have a look at this photo below;

Now would Davey Jones look as good with a mask of rubber like they used to have, with the tentacles only moving when the actor moved his head??? No of course not.

"Sky Captain and the World of Tommorrow" is a film that highlights just where films are going, it was shot almost entirely in front of a green/blue screen, with the only real action being a few of the air scenes. Yet when you see the film, you can't really tell that much, yes granted some of it is a bit ropey, but on the whole it knits together quite well. The storyline isn't too bad either, but the thing is the film didn't do that well. Doe's this mean that special effects aren't everything??

Now look at the new release of "Transformers", that is just one big special effects and CGI ride, and it is a blockbuster, so does this mean that special effects ARE everything?? Difficult to tell isn't it?

One of the all time classic films is "Psycho", and that had zero special effects in, it was good because it played on peoples fears and was one hell of a good storyline, if a little simple. Which may go to prove that special effects aren't everything, but then you take into account all the times you have said, wouldn't it be good if they remade that film with better effects?

Sometimes though that doesn't work, "Star Wars" was way ahead of it's time for special effects, but now they look a bit 'modelly', yet I think that the original trilogy is far in a way better than the new up to date films. So again we are questioning whether or not special effects are the most important thing in a film.

Just how many of the so-called blockbusters would have been blockbusters without special effects and CGI?? Not too many that is for sure! I though have to say that for low CGI related films that have been blockbusters, and that have had that adventure/action/comedy appeal, one comes top of the list in my view and that is "Raiders of the Lost Ark", a great film that relied more on story than effects.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Weekly Question

Is this REALLY the last Potter Book?

There are now less than 12 hours to wait as I write this, for the most eagerly waited book in history. Well according to pre-realease sales figures it is.

Yes "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" will be released at midnight tonight (20th July) and we will all finally find out who bites the bullet, if Harry, Hermoine, and Ron all live. And if Snape really is a goody or a baddie.

A lot of people aren't really bothered about the book, and will be just as eager to ruin it for the rest of us 'fans' by giving away plot lines and the ending. Which is why I am glad to be going away again soon, once more to Saudi, so little chance of my enjoyment being ruined.

But is this REALLY the end of the Potter books?? J.K. Rowling has always said she was only going to do 7 novels, all following Harry through 'senior' school. But is she really going to call time on such a hugely popular series? IF Harry has survived the encounter in the last of the books, surely we are gong to want to know what happens to Harry after leaving school? As well as all his school friends and enemies.

I think there is some truth in the fact J.K. has written her last children's book on Harry, as this is what it always started as. But remember how much the books have become a lot darker, and have grown as Harry has. May be there is a good reason for writing an adult book on Harry, we shall see.

Whatever happens, the gulf that is going to be left when the last of the books has been made into a film is going to be Vacuumous. What will there be to fill the void? Who knows what series of books will take the place of Mr. Potter, but I for one believe in all honesty that we really aven't seen the last of J.K. foray into the world of Hogworts.

Weekly Question

Will We Ever Colonise the Moon?





I am sticking with the space/fantasy theme of the quiz this week for my question, as I wanted to know your views on whether or not we will colonise the moon.

One of my favourite shows when I was a kid was SPACE 1999, to see a base on the moon really fired up my imagination, and as I watched it in the 70's, I thought that it was only a matter of time before it happened for real. Indeed I was hoping I would be one of those piloting an Eagle Transporter.


So what happend? Why are we not there yet?


A lot of it has to do with money, and the huge costs involved in sending someone into space, it also has to do with the method of sending them. Although the price has come down an awful lot, is it still viable to spend the inordinate amount of dosh required? Well a few millionaires seem to think so, as more and more are orbiting the earth.

The International Space Station is being built, and loads of nations are committed to it, and willing to use it. But are any of them considering actually building on the moon? Will we be seeing sights such as the image below on our TV screens any time soon.





Somehow I don't think we will.

But I do think that we will be needing to look somewhere to ease the increasing population on Earth. It can't sustain us for much longer, so we ar going to have to look at alternatives, forget Mars, that is just a pipe dream. We need to concentrate on things closer, and that one thing is the moon.

I cannot see any way we will be able to be on the moon in my lifetime, but I hope there might be a way in my kids lifetimes. After all they are only 7 and 2, so there is a good chance. May be they will even be living in something like this...

So I would be interested to know your thoughts on it.

For further reading try;

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon

Weekly Question

Is this Guy nuts??

Yesterday and today there has been a lot on Radio 5Live and in quite a few papers regarding a certain doctor - Dr. Aric Sigman, who wants the government of the UK to take action to reduce the amount of TV that our children watch. Well to an extent I agree that too much television can be harmful to children but what Dr. Sigman is proposing goes beyond the pale. I mean this guys recommendations are off the planet.

This is what he recommends;

Children under three - no screen exposure
Children aged three to seven - 30 minutes to one hour per day
Children aged seven to 12 - one hour a day
Children aged 12 to 15 - one and-a-half hours a day
Children aged 16 and over - two hours.

Now can you imagine telling 15 year old Johnny 1/2 way through Heroes that he has to stop watching??!!! I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Here is what the newspapers said;


The amount of TV children watch should be rationed according to a "recommended daily allowance", an expert is due to tell MPs.
Dr Aric Sigman said the Government must take action to cut TV-watching among children as too much increases the risk of health and learning problems. He wants to see parents given recommended daily amount guidelines, much as they are for salt intake, and said "screen media" was a major issue for public health. Studies have shown excessive TV watching is linked to difficulty in sleeping, behavioural problems and increased obesity in children. One long-term study, published in The Lancet medical journal in 2004, found children who watched more than two hours of television a day between the ages of five and 15 saw their health suffer years later.
Experts made the link between childhood viewing and raised cholesterol levels, obesity and smoking in adulthood.
Dr Sigman will urge the Government to advise parents on the issue and suggests children under three should watch no TV at all. He also believes there should be no TV sets in children's bedrooms and new mothers should be warned of the possible effects.
He rejected claims that setting down guidelines constitutes a "nanny state" and said: "Parents need an ideal reference point, even if they choose to ignore it or cannot adhere to it."
Dr Sigman, an associate fellow of the British Psychological Society and a member of the Institute of Biology, will voice his concerns at a Children and the Media conference at the House of Commons, organised by pressure group Mediawatch-UK.

Now to me there are a lot of programs out there that are beneficial to the development of children, there is also a lot of rubbish, but in the end it balances out.
The odd thing is that TV viewing has actually gone down, as kids tend to concentrate more now on computers and games machines. Is Dr. Sigman going to target these in a few years time???

But getting the government involved?? Ludicrous in the extreme! How would they control it for a start?
It is down to the parents themselves to control how much our kids watch the TV, we have managed to cut down our kids viewing by doing other things with the kids to keep them entertained, so it isn't all that hard. But try doing it for teenagers HAH!

So there you have it, but what do you think of the idea?

Weekly Question

The Right or Wrong place?

We have at present in the UK, a bit of a debate brewing about smacking children. Now one store is thinking of implementing a ban on smacking in their store, and anyone caught disciplining their child for bad behavior will be removed from the store.

What next then? Chucked out for chewing gum? Chucked out for talking??? It is getting a bit silly now, and of course the only people who are going to win with this are the kids that misbehave and cause so much stress for their parents. Ergo, discipline is not going to be shown so our society suffers even more!

But what to do?

There is an advert shown in the UK, of a mum suffering from a bad cold and her son is on the want. When she says no, he throws down the thing he is holding and shouts "AAAARRRGGGHHH". So his mum, after taking the advertised remedy, looks at him, screams lies on the floor bashing her fists into it and kicking her legs, as the boy looks on in shock. She then gets up nods at the boy as if to say "Well, beat that!", the boy smiles and starts to behave lovely.

But would you do that to your kids, I mean if they show you up, would you do the same to them in return, or would you just be too embarrassed? Hard choice to make, but I am sure it would be pretty effective.

Now I am not going to condone smacking, I think that it is right to do so given the right circumstances to discipline a child. But what I object to is people telling me that I am not able to discipline my kids the way I beleive they should be disciplined.

Think about it, your kid is playing up because they can't have what they want, do you

1) Give then a sharp smack on their legs, and tell them to behave?
2) Buy it for them to shut them up?
3) Leave the store?
4) Say you may get it for them if they stop moaning and behave, for the next few days, then do so ONLY if they behave?

Well I would go with number 4, but in some exceptional circumstances it would have to be both 1 and 3. Trouble is the looks you get if you do smack your kids in public, and by smacking I mean not leaving finger marks or bruises!

Ikea has a good idea, where they provide a creche for the kids of certain ages whilst the parents go shopping. Nice idea, which is not implemented enough in other stores. In the States a lot of Malls have entertainment areas where kids are well catered for.

But it doesn't stop from answering the crucial quuestion, should smacking be banned in shops?

In all honesty I would have to say no, simply because if it is then we are been told how we should bring up our kids, and kids can use it to their advantage - don't want to go shopping so I will misbehave in the shop so mum takes me out - I can see the scenario now.

In the UK it really is turning into an Orwellian state, and big brother really is watching you, I mean they even have CCTV that has speakers so that the control can communicate to a minor offender to stop the unsociable behaviour!

So to smack or not to smack?
It has to be down to the individual concerned, not anybody else.

Weekly Question

Who are the real Victims???

Sorry that I haven't posted for a while! I always seem to be saying that these days, but the truth is I have just got back from Costa Rica, my Internet connection has been down, and I have my mum here for a visit. So the quiz is cancelled till next week, when I think I am going to go with the Blue theme of Wills, but there again...

Anyway, on with this weeks question, who are the real victims. Now by that I mean crime ways. Why do I ask? Well, this morning in the UK there has been quite a bit of a kerfuffle over a copper hitting a black woman 5 times, and been caught on CCTV. Now this young woman was 19, drunk as a skunk, resisting arrest and assaulting the copper. I am not condoning the copper for hitting her, but if that was the only way to restrain her then...

But that got me thinking, why is it this woman has been made to look a heroine, and the copper who was only doing his job is now suspended and looks likely to lose his job?

Here is what I think...


..it is what I have always thought, we are too soft on crime, and criminals are treated far better than their victims. Victim support? Pah don't make me laugh, it doesn't work! Lock the guy away who did the crime without the luxuries of TV, computers, 3 square meals a day, access to the gym etc, and may be, just may be he will think about what he has done.

I have had this arguement sort of before, on punishment, but this time I am concentrating more on the victims. In the UK the crime figures have supposed to have fallen, but I think the reported crime has fallen, only because less and less people are reporting it. Why are less people reporting crime? Because they know damn well nothing will get done about it that's why! If the coppers turn up and get an arrest, the accussed's friends make sure that it isn't reported again. But most of all it is what happens after a crime has been committed that really grips me.

A crime is reported and the crime is given a priority, if it is a burglary that has happened during the night or something, and no-one has been hurt, you may see a policeman, that week. On very rare occassions, you may see one on the same day, but like I said that is rare. They take statements and then go away, before going they ask if you want councelling and they may give you a leaflet. Usually that is the last you see of them for weeks on end, so what is the point?
When we had some stuff stolen, we almost got accussed of wasting police time, as they said that it was a waste of time sending anyone as there was nothing they could do! They didn't even know the full details really.

Recently, I heard about a bunch of prisoners who had been awarded a set amount of damages as they had their TV or something taken away, and this infringed on their basic human rights. What a load of CRAP!!! What about the victims of the crime who are scared shitless to go to sleep in their own homes because they have been burgled, do they have any human rights?? Apparently not.

The other thing that grips me is the fact that during court sessions, the criminal is always made to look a victim - Oh he comes from a broken home, Oh he had no father, oh this oh that. WHO GIVES A TOSS!!!!!!! They bloody well committed a crime, they CHOSE to do so, what about all the other kids of the estate that have come from broken homes who HAVEN'T gone that way??
I am sick to the back teeth of criminals been made into so-called victims.

But by far the worst is the fact that if you smack a kid for been abusive and for smashing up your car, or causing criminal damage, or the like. YOU are the one that gets it in the neck from the police, they are not bothered about the good for nothing career teenager that has done the damage. All they care about is the innocent victim that used minimal force to stop it.

The Criminal Justice system needs sorting out big time, until the true victims are treated like victims, criminals of the world are going to carry on as they are.

Weekly Question

New Year’s Resolutions

By now over 30% of us will have broken any New Year’s Resolutions we may have made. That is 30% of people have taken less than 2 days to break there resolutions, incredibly 25% of us break them within the first day!
The majority of people (75%) break them within the week, so what is the point in making them in the first place???

Well I think it is because we all have to have something to aim for, so we go with the boldest and hardest resolutions to achieve that goal. For me, if I had made one, it would have been to cut down on the amount of chocolate I eat, and try to lose a bit of weight. But as I had a mini Snikers from the chocolate barrel, at about 12:10, I was on a losing streak right from the start.



Why make a resolution that you know that it is very unlikely to keep? My one that I mentioned about cutting down on chocolate and trying to lose weight is one of the top three resolutions made, the top being quit smoking.

The top three in the UK are;

1) Quit smoking
2) Loose Weight/Exercise more
3) Spend more time with Friends & Family

So this weeks poll is a simple question, it just asks how long you have managed to keep on of your resolutions for?

Last weeks Question: Is Christmas too commercialised? Yes 92.9%, No 7.1%

Weekly Question

Is Christmas too Commercialised?

Well it will soon be on us again, yes that's right it's the time of year where we all spend far too much, eat too much, drink too much, and generally over do things for the sake of a celebration of the birth of someone special. But how many of us really think about the true meaning of Christmas, how many kids out there know the real reason for celebrating Christmas?? Not all that many really.

So has Christmas become too commercialised?





Well have a look at this decorated tree...










Now for me this is just a tad overdone. I mean you casn hardly tell it's a tree with all those decorations and lights. It is a case of buying too much to try to impress, and that is one thing that I have noticed about Christmas, people worry that gifts they bring and buy, are not going to be accepted in a favourable light.


I hate that, the very fact that it was bought in the first place is good enough, I mean I would rather get a handmade present that cost a few pounds, than something that costs hundreds. Why? because something handmade in my opinion has more heart in it than anything that can be bought.





The above image is of a wooden moose puzzle, it doesn't look much, but to a kid who gets nothing at Christmas, it is a ray of light in a dark world, it brings a smile of joy to their face, isn't that what it's about?

Years ago my grandparents would get a wooden toy, an orange, a piece of coal, and if they were lucky some chocolate in their stockings, and that is when a stocking really was a sock.

Not now though sadly, now if a kid got that they would really be upset. But what about the true meaning of Christmas. Let's just put the picture straight here I am in no way a religious person, I don't go to church very often, I don't pray, and I think the bible is just a bunch of stories (I am in trouble for that!). But what I do believe is that we should remember Christmas as the birth of Jesus rather than the fact we get loads of pressies.

Last year I went to the first Christmas Nativity in a very long time, at our local Church, I took my daughter who was 5 at the time and she was lucky enough to be an angel in the acted out nativity. She loved every minute of it, But I loved it more! There was something very uplifting about singing carols in the church and I am definitely going again this year. The closest I got to a feeling like that was when I lived in Lincoln and went to the Christmas Market there. Luckily it started to snow at about 11pm, as a load of us gathered around carol singers, standing under the shadow of Lincoln Cathedral, holding a bag of hot chestnuts. Bliss!

So has Christmas become too commercialised? Well for me it has, it wont stop me enjoying it though.

Last weekly question: Do you surf at work?

Yes (Tea breaks and lunch) - 0%, Yes ( less than 1 Hour) - 20%, Yes (1-2 hours) - 10%, Yes (2-3 hours) -30%, Yes (3 hours+) - 20%, Plead the 5th - 20%