Movie Review 24: The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is the antidote to Twilight. Over the weekend, The GF and I caught the first movie in the series at the Cinerama over the weekend. It's good film and one well worth seeing. It's based on a book of the same name, and the first one in a series. I haven't read the books yet,  but The GF has, and she reports the movie is a reasonably accurate adaptation.

The Hunger Games takes place is a post apocalyptic, dystopian North America. The ruling Capitol City of Panem defeated a rebellion by 12 districts 75 years prior to the start of the movie. As punishment for their uprising, each district is required to, once a year, send 1 boy and 1 girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in the annual Hunger Games.  The Hunger Games is a reality TV show where all 24 teens must fight to the death while all 12 districts must watch the games play out on TV.

The point of the games is to continue to punish the districts for their uprising, intimidate them against future uprisings, and assert the dominance of the ruling party of Panem.

In Districts 1 and 2, children are trained from birth to win the games. As a result, the winner is usually from one of these districts.

The movie follows the story of Katniss Everdeen, the girl chosen from District 12. Her younger sister was actually chosen in the annual drawing, but Katniss volunteered to take her place.

The characters go through an intense personal journey as they meet the other tributes from other districts. In the time leading up to the games, they have to get used to the idea that they are going to die brutally soon, or that they are going to have to brutally murder other children soon. Most of them will encounter both fates since there can be only one winner.

As you can imagine, this is a violent movie. The focus is on children killing one another for the entertainment/intimidation of the entire society.

The violence is not even the driving theme for the movie.  It's the commentary on Reality TV.  The way the producers run the games and manipulate players is an important part of the movie.  It's not too difficult to imagine a show like this as the natural extension of what already airs on cable channels across the airways. It gets into fascinating areas of hope, love, story-telling, and more, in a very dark way.

In addition to the knowing-they-have-to-kill-each-other thing, the kids also have to learn to appeal to sponsors. Like on American Idol where winning fans is the key to success, appealing to fans and sponsors in the Hunger Games can mean bonuses during the game that make the difference between life and death.

That leads to another interesting aspect of the film. At times it reminds me of a role playing game as characters learn new skills and "level up" throughout the game. They acquire loot and gain experience points. That could just be me reading too much into forest quests with swords and bows, but it helped involve me deeper in the film.

The cinematography is excellent. The film manages to  maintain an intense feeling of fear and sense of violence, while minimizing the graphic nature of it through subtle camera work.  In the heat of a massacre, they are are still able to maintain a PG13 rating.

The sound design was even more impressive. They adjusted the sound to what the characters were hearing, made excellent use of background audio, and effectively created an immersive surround sound environment.

The Hunger Games is long movie. It may have been possible to tighten up the earlier parts of the film, but that's tough to say. There is a lot of background information the movie needs to convey. It tries to do that while minimizing the exposition, and that is a tough challenge.  According to The GF, they did leave out some of the key elements the book goes into. They're not essential to the plot, but do contribute to the overall atmosphere of the book.  It feels a little slow in the beginning, but the pace does pick up. It's a tough balance for the movie makers.

In this adaptation we do miss some of Katniss's internal monologue. Here character grows, but apparently not  in the same way she grows in the novel.

In short I like the movie. It's an interesting social commentary combined with a great story. I do care about what happens to the characters. I really want to see what happens in the next movie, and this movie makes me want to read the books.  Overall, I'd call it a success.

You can find more of my movie reviews here.

American Theater Wing announces new Partnership with DHS

Today, the American Theater Wing and The Broadway League announced an new partnership with the Department of Homeland Security. The American Theatre Wing's Tony Awards® are presented by Tony Award Productions, a joint venture of The Broadway League and the American Theatre Wing. The two organizations have jointly administered the Tony’s since 1967, the year of the first Tony telecast.  The Department of Homeland Security is charged with protecting Americans from terrorist threats.

This new partnership will come into the spotlight on June 10, 2012 during the 66th annual Tony Awards.  The show will feature three new categories – Best Airport Cast, Best Performance by a Backscatter Specialist, and Best Performance by Gate Screening Specialist.

A spokesperson for the Tony organization said, “It’s only natural we should recognize excellence in the stage performance of the TSA. These agents don’t just do a show every night and a Wednesday matinee. They are on stage all the time. They are never dark.”

He went on to praise the skills of the officers. “The way they can say, ‘We are here for your protection,’ and ‘Your safety is our priority,’ over and over with a straight face is truly astounding.

The Best Airport Cast award will recognize the TSA team a particular airport that most effectively conveys the illusion that they make flying more secure. The judges will consider how many people in the community actually believe the TSA, with a special weighting given to the views of the airport staff.  The winner is the ensemble that has so effectively portrayed the role of “security” that its own members actually start to believe they have value.

The Best Performance by a Backscatter Specialist will recognize an officer that most clearly acts as though selection is a random and that displays the most convincing portrayal of someone not afraid of the non-FDA tested and non-AMA tested radiation emitters, more commonly known as nude-o-scopes.

Because every great show needs an encore, the Best Performance by a Gate Screening Agent will recognize an officer for their excellence in this task. It’s a tough category. Gate Screenings are the random, surprise inspections that take place at the boarding door, where TSA does its best to delay flights and further annoy passengers. The agent in this role must be able to convince passengers not only of the value of this task, but also that they even though they are doing it, that does not mean that the check point team frequently misses things.

The TSA was originally created by Congress on November 19,2001, as a way to make the American people think they were doing something about the very real threat of terrorism the country faced. The illusion has largely been considered effective. The legislation included a framework that would allow for collective bargaining. TSA rank and file are expected to select Actors' Equity as its union of choice.

Related Posts:
New Character Class in Next Version of WoW: The Hermit 
RIAA to Pursue Mix TapesNew times
An Obituary
New SeaTac Name
Are you going to Scarbarough fare...

1470

I'm a couple weeks late with this post, but that's not so surprising considering my updates over the past year.

2012-01-23 was my 6th Blogaversary.  In that time, I've done 1,470 posts. Between years 5 and 6, though, I did just 32.  It's quite a drop off from when I was doing near daily posts a couple years back.  There are a number of reasons (or excuses) for that, but I won't go into them here. In previous drafts they just came across as whiny to me. 

What intrigues me about this whole process is that I came up with excuses at all. Excuses are often something we come up with when we've let others down or failed to meet their expectations. I'm not arrogant enough to think my readers are eagerly anticipating a bunch of posts. 

Writing is a personal obligation to myself, and one that I enjoy. And yet my excuses are least effective when offered to myself.

This blog is about more than just being an outlet for my personal writing energy.It's about chronicling the events in my life. It's about recording details of trip and activities I enjoy before they get pushed out of my brain when that snippet of dialog for "The Big Bang Theory" decides it wants to set up camp on that stack of neurons.  

I write my book reviews for a similar reason.  In addition to the process making me think more about my reading and take and active roll in the process, it's also about remembering the books.  When I think back on the books I read before I started this process, I find I can't remember much beyond a general impression.  And considering the 5-35 hours that reading a book can take, that just feels wrong.  Plus it's inconvenient when I'm reading several books in a series over the course of a few years.

So what can I predict over the next year?  

I'd like to think my pace will pick up.  I'll be satisfied if I do 50+ posts between now and 2013-01-13. That means more reviews, phones, and new commentaries.  

Aside from that, I don't think there will be other major changes over the next year.  But keep checking back. There will be more stuff on here that is interesting to me. And maybe -- just maybe -- to you too.

Previous Blogaversary posts:

• Year 0: 2006-01-23 -- To Begin with... (First Post)
• Year 1: 2007-01-24 -- 371
• Year 2: 2008-01-24 -- 685
• Year 3: 2009-01-24 -- 990
• Year 4: 2010-01-23 -- 1,262
• Year 5: 2011-01-23 -- 1428

Book Review 66: iWoz: How I invented the personal computer, co-founded Apple, and had fun doing it

I didn’t realize it at the time, but that day, Sunday, June 29, 1975, was pivotal. It was the first time in history anyone had typed a character on a keyboard and seen it show up on the screen right in front of them.

Page 166

Steve Wozniak’s memoir (co-authored by Gina Smith), “iWoz” is a great book for several reasons. It’s generally well written. It gives a nice overview of the history of the computer buisness in the 70s (and is a great compliment to Andy Grove’s, “Only the Paranoid Survive”), and it tells us a lot about Woz as a person. It’s a book with great geek appeal.

If you want to learn more about Apple’s design or marketing practices, this is a not the book for you. The recent Steve Jobs biography may be a better choice for that; Woz was largely done with Apple’s day-to-day operations when Apple became a design house. This book is more about the early days of the PC business and the evolution of electronics.

The biggest negative about this book is that at times Woz and coauthor Gina Smith seem to ramble or repeat things unnecessarily. While mildly annoying at times, this doesn’t really detract from my enjoyment of the book.

The thing that stands out most for me is how Woz can talk about how smart he is and how his inventions changed the entire industry and the world, and he does that without sounding arrogant or like he’s bragging. There is an innocent, matter-of-factness to his stories that is both amazing and charming. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone else pull that off.

So right there in that bowling alley I suddenly had this cool new goal. I was going to go back and start thinking about my first design that was actually going to put characters on a TV set. I remember how, way back in high school, I wondered how, if I ever did a computer, I would ever be able to afford one that could ever display characters on a screen. That was unfathomable back then. But now, I knew, something was different.

Everything had changed.

Page 141

So I designed this game Breakout.

Page 144

That was amazing because back then color TVs operated with circuits a lot more complicated than any computer was back then. And the funny thing is, that very idea came to me in the middle of the night at that lab at Atari. I did no testing on it, but I filed it away in my memory, and eventually that was exactly how things like color monitors ended up on personal computers everywhere. Because of my wild idea that night.

page 147

Every computer before the Apple I had the front panel of switches and lights. Every computer since has had a keyboard and screen. That’s how huge my idea turned out.

Page 160

The Apple II was the first low-cost computer which, out of the box, you didn’t have to be a geek to use.

Page 188

Woz’s father was an engineer in the Bay-Area aerospace industry, and he encouraged his son to learn the field where transistors were still new and computers were mamoth things fed by punch cards.

Engineering wasn’t just a good living -- it was a calling. There was a beauty and elegance to electronics and engineering. Technology was an end in and of itself.

I so clearly remember him telling me that engineering was the highest level of importance you could reach in the world, that someone who could make electrical devices that do something good for people takes society to a new level. He told me that as a an engineer, you can change your world and change the ways of life for lots of people.

Page 16

And I came to that same view when I was very young, ten or maybe younger. Inside my head -- and this is what has really stayed with me -- I came to the view that basically, yes, technology is good and not bad.

People argue about this all the time, but I have no doubt about it at all. I believe technology moves us forward. Always.

Page 17

As Woz grew up, he quickly picked up on computer programming. This discussion is interesting in a couple of respects. One is that he grasps the technology so enthusiastically. The other is the way he breaks down digital technology to the basic math.

Here’s what was amazing to me back then. I thought to myself: Hey, at my current level of fifth-grade math, I am able to learn math used by a computer -- De Morgan’s Theorem, Boolean algebra. I mean, anyone could learn Boolen algebra and they wouldn’t even need a higher level of math than I already had in fifth grade. Computers -- were kind of simple, I discovered. And that blew me away. Computers -- which in my opinion were the most incredible things in the world, the most advanced technology there was, way above the head, above the understanding, of almost everyone -- were so simple a fifth grader like me could understand them! I loved that. I decided then that I wanted to do logic and computers for fun.I wasn’t sure if that was even possible.

Page 34

This is one of the things that many people overlook about computers -- they all work on very basic principals of math. They’re nothing but collections of light switches where everything is on or off. The entire digital world economy is based on this simple construct. And those switches will only do exactly what the user and programmer tell them today.

Woz continued to develop his skills in technology. He developed such a deep affinity for technology, that eventually he could actually write in machine code.

This 1 and 0 program could be entered into RAM or a PROM and run as a program. The hitch was that I couldn’t afford to pay for computer time. Luckily, the 6502 manual I had described what 1s and 0s were generated for each instruction, each step of a program. MOS Technologies even provided a pocket-sized card you carry that included all the 1s and 0s for each of the many instructions you needed.

So I wrote on the left side of the page in machine language. As an example, I might write down “LDA #44,” which means to load data corresponding to 44 (in hexadecimal) into the microprocessor’s A register.

On the right side of the page, I would write that instruction in hexadecimal using my card. For example that instruction would translate into A9 44. The instruction A9 44 stood for 2 bytes of data, which equated to 1s and 0s the computer could understand: 10101001 01000100.

Writing the program this way took about two or three pieces of paper, using every line.

Page 164

Woz developed a particular knack for simplifying hardware and software designs. Whether due to the cost of chips or just the challenge of technology, Woz would redesign and improve systems by removing chips and simplifying code. He also approached it all as a learning opportunity. A lot of what he accomplished he did because it was something he didn’t necesarily know how to do. The reason he can talk about his accomplishments without it coming across as excessive bragging is that he never seems to act like he knows everything already. He’s perpetually curious.

This plywood was covered with parts and it was a huge project. And having a huge project is a huge part of learning engineering -- learning anything, probably.

Page 38

That made me realize that a million times a second didn’t solve everything. Raw speed isn’t always the solution. Many understandable problems need an insightful, well-thought-out approach to succeed. The approach a program takes to solve something, the rules and steps and procedures it follows, by the way, is called an algorithm.

Page 51

His desire to push the boundaries of technology wasn’t his only motivation. There was also the more basic need he felt, born from his own shyness. Communicating with people was always a challenge for him. He faced the traditional nerd challenge of making friends and building relationships. Technology was his solution to the problem.

In that sense, it was a great way to show off my real talent, my talent of coming up with clever designs, designs that were efficient and affordable. By that I mean designs that would use the fewest components possible.

I also designed the Apple because I wanted to give it away for free to other people. I gave out schematics for building my computer at the next meeting I attended.

This was my way of socializing and getting recognized. I had to build something to show other people.

Page 157

Woz also talks about his love for practical jokes. In college he discovered he could jam a TV signal in a rec room with a device. He would turn it on, the signal would go out, someone else would get up to try to fix it, Woz would turn off the device and really confuse people.

So anyone watching would think that, okay, hitting harder works better. They all thought something was loose inside the TV and that by hitting it hard with your hand you could fix it. It was almost like a psychology experiment -- except, I noticed, humans learn better than rats. Only rats learn it quicker.

Page 63

At one point he started getting phone calls from people who were trying to reach and airline. Woz started having fun with them.

I told some caller they could fly “freight.” But they had to wear warm clothing.

I kept a straight face because everyone always went for the lower fare. At some point I started telling them it was cheaper to fly on a propeller planes than jets. The first time I did this I tried to book a guy on a thirty-four hour flight to London. But he would have nothing to do with it. I did get a number of people to buy a cheap twenty-four hour flight form San Jose to New York City.

Page 135

Woz tells more about the early days of Apple, his relationship with Steve Jobs, his endeavors after leaving day-to-day operations at Apple, his family life and more. I’ve only scratched the surface here. Regardless of your feeling about Apple as an organization, this is a fantastic book, and Woz has had a fascinating life. Despite the occasional bit of rambling and redundant content. “iWoz” remains an excellent read.


You can find more of my book review here.

Book Review 65: Captain’s Log: William Shatner’s Personal Account of the Making of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as told by Lisabeth Shatner

“I guess the way I work as an actor -- I say ‘I guess’ because I don’t consciously have a methodology -- is to ask, ‘How entertaining can this be?’ How many levels of expression are there in a ‘Hello,’ for example? What is really being said in this ‘hello’? The person the character is saying ‘hello’ to -- how well does the character really know him? Does he really mean ‘hello’? What has gone before that he is saying ‘hello’ in his own life? So that ‘hello’ can have many variations. And you can play more than one variation in the very ‘hello.’ And so, in the interests of not only my character, but in the pure idea of entertainment value, I have tried to keep as many balls in the air as possible when saying a line. That’s how I approached playing Kirk.”
Page 28

"Captain’s Log: William Shatner’s Personal Account of the Making of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier As Told by Lisabeth Shatner" is a fascinating look behind the scenes of the train wreck that was one of the 3 worst Star Trek movies in the franchise (Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: Nemesis being the other two that vie for the title, depending on the day of the week). In this book, Lis Shatner spends time on the set chronicling the project from the initial development to the filming to the post production. She interviews here farther extensively, interviews the cast and crew about their experiences, and relates some of her own personal anecdotes about her complicated relationship with Star Trek.

This is a great book to read. It’s a look at just how this movie got made, and about how it could have been so much worse. If you've read a bunch of the other Star Trek cast memoirs and William Shatner’s earlier books, you are likely already familiar with some of the stories. For example, we hear about William Shatner stealing Leonard Nimoy’s bike again. Still, there is new material, and some additional perspective in this book that are worth the read.

If you haven’t read many other books about the franchise, this one is a great introduction and place to start. It covers some of the basic history of Star Trek production and how the franchise got to this point. If you find the material in this book interesting, then there are lots more Star Trek histories and memoirs to read for more details.

Lis Shatner starts discussing the challenges of growing up as Captain Kirk’s daughter. She talks about trying to avoid the connection and distance herself from her life as a “Shatner” as you might expect from a teenager or college student. As a kid, though, it was always part of her life.

When we got off, my father finally had had enough. “If I give you my autograph, will you promise to leave us alone?”he asked. “Yes, yes!” they cried, still jumping up and down. He hastily scribbled his signature on an eagerly proffered sheet of paper, and the girls magically disappeared. We were finally left as before, still trying to convince my mother to let us ride the Matterhorn. 

Page 11

At this point in my life, I felt a strange ambivalence towards “Star Trek.” I knew much of my father’s success as an actor was because of the series, and for that I was grateful and proud. “Star Trek” had also made him the magical, famous father who could sweep me out of my misery. But it was also “Star Trek” that had set me apart in the first place, making me an outcast and the target for so much criticism. I often felt that I had no identity other that “Captain Kirk’s Daughter,” and even joked that those words would be engraved on my tombstone. 

Page 14-15

A career in Star Trek often posed challenges for William Shatner’s family. He travelled extensively. It was hard to avoid fans. And his drive to always be working would sometimes distract him from personal concerns.

"It all became very apparent to me one day as I visited the special effects make-up artist, Kenny Myers, to check on the Vulcan ear molds. He showed me a pair of baby Vulcan ears, which we were going to use for the infant Spock. Then he said, ‘I heard the baby was sick.’ My immediate reaction was, ‘What—now one of the twins we’re using to play the infant Spock is sick? What else is going to go wrong?’ And Kenny said, ‘No, your daughter Leslie’s son.’ I felt an immediate, momentary relief that it was only my grandson that was sick! That’s when I knew the stress was beginning to get to me.” 

Page 69

The network almost didn’t air the original series in the sixties. The pilot’s plot was just not great. To here William Shatner tell it, his interpretation of the Captain Kirk saved the series and was responsible for it’s tone and direction.

So I went back to Hollywood and saw this pilot. I saw a lot of wonderful things in it. But I also saw that the people in it were playing it as though ‘We’re out in space, isn’t this serious?” I thought if it was a naval vessel at sea, they’d be relaxed and familiar, not somewhat pedantic and self-important about being out in space. It seemed to me they wouldn’t be so serious about it. And the fact that I had come off all these years in comedy -- I wanted it to be lighter rather than heavier. So I consciously thought of playing good-pal-the-Captain who, in time of need, would snap to and become the warrior. I broached this idea to Gene, and it seemed to strike a note. So the story was written, the pilot made, and ultimately it sold. The next thing I knew, I was to play Captain Kirk on a weekly basis. 

Page 27

It’s sort of a light-hearted version of Heath Ledger’s Joker saying, “Why so serious?”

Of course Shatner is making this movie more than 20 years after he created Kirk and he sought to portray the characters in a more serious manner and with greater symbolism. Of course, Kirk is always the most important one.

“Next, I introduced our three leading characters -- Kirk, Spock, and McCoy -- at Yosemite. It was only much later that I realized this rock climbing sequences was a mythological symbol of man’s trying to achieve greater heights, which is, of course, what the whole story is about. In any case, Spock flies up to visit Kirk while he’s climbing, then saves him as he slips and falls. McCoy watches the whole scene, and when Spock later brings Kirk back to the campfire from where McCoy has been watching, they discuss life and death, aging, whether Kirk was afraid, and so on as we introduce the themes of the movie.” 

Page 35-36

Perhaps it’s by focusing on these themes that the movie gets lost. Shatner unironically describes the movie this way:

“When they arrive on the planet the holy man has conquered, they try to reason with him. The reasoning escalates into fighting, and before it is over, the Enterprise is boarded by these primitives. 

Page 36

No one can argue that William Shatner is not committed to his vision, however. He insists on doing dangerous stunts just so they look perfect.

“Sometimes it’s just not worth it to do something dangerous because special effects can take care of it,” Ralph [Winter] commented as we watched preparations for the scene progress. “I wanted to do this in a matte shot … I don’t think I’ve sweated as much on a movie as I have today.” At this point, Ralph motioned towards the cliff. “I mean, look at this. I’d hate to think of how many people would be out of work if he hurt himself.”

Despite the objections, my father felt that there was simply no replacement for actually hanging off the cliff. “I know what I want to do is dangerous,” he said. “But I also know that if I get what I want, the shot will be spectacular. The audience can always tell if something is fake or not, and a shot of Kirk really hanging off a mountain is irreplaceable. My desire for this shot is overriding my tremendous fear of heights. I just keep reminding myself not to look down!” 

Page 111

Lisabeth Shatner asked Leonard Nimoy to compare his movies to the one Shatner was now directing.

Later in the movie, I asked him what the difference was between a Leonard Nimoy Star Trek movie and a Bill Shatner Star Trek movie. He replied with a laugh, “In a Bill Shatner movie there’s a lot more running and jumping.” 

Page 109

Shatner learned a lot of lessons in his first major on location shoot as a director in the desert. To begin with, he had to learn that the actors weren’t the only people that mattered on a film. His occupation was just a small part of a production.

At that point I thought, ‘I’ve always known directing was communicating to the actor. I never realized directing was also communicating to drivers and to everyone else.’ 

Page 122

Because the schedule was so tight and the budget so constrained Shatner did everything he could to get the shots he wanted and get them on budget. No one could accuse him of not working hard. Sometimes he worked a little too hard though and became too much of a control freak. He needed to learn not just how to communicate with non-actors, but to also let them do their jobs.

My father’s distress gradually mounted as he watched several unsuccessful attempts, until finally he exploded and started yelling. In a half-joking gesture of frustration, he even flung himself down on the ground and pounded the cracked earth. 

Unfortunately, his dramatic gesture didn’t solve anything. 

Page 119 

“Basically what happened was Bill crossed the lines … he was pushing too hard,” Ralph said. “I told him, ‘Your passion for the picture is both a blessing and a curse. The passion is what excites the crew, they like working for you … you make them feel good, you have a good time with them. But the downside is, you create panic. You’re trying to do their jobs. Let them do their jobs. Let Mike Woods decide where the fan is going to go. You tell him the way you want the wind to be in the camera, and let him figure out where to put it. Forget it. You get all worked up about it and it creates problems. Then you’ve got four cameras going; four operators, four lenses. four systems, four different exposures, and it just can’t all happen in a second … if we come back from location and it doesn’t look like location, then what have we accomplished’? Nothing … we have to show the vistas. We have to show that we were here. If it takes longer, if it puts us overschedule by a day or two, let’s do it. Because that’s what makes the movie great. 

Page 120

A Teamster strike complicated the film’s production. They had to use non-union drivers and other staff to get eqipment to location. The interesting aspect of this is that it highlighted the advantages of expereinced people because they lacked them here. Driving a truck and moving a wardrobe is about more than knowing how to drive and move things. Experienced staff develop other skills that don’t pop on a list of key skills. It’s about understanding the process and role better than those without experience. It’s about knowing what questions to ask and knowing all the “obvious” stuff that is only obvious with years of experience.

And there’s value to that.

The Teamsters are saying that it’s things like the expensive actors which are driving up the costs. So there is this dispute going on. But while some people may think the Teamsters are getting paid too much, the advantage is they very familiar with industry proceedings. They know to do certain things automatically, whereas people who haven’t worked in the business don’t. 

Page 126

Another fascinating aspect of the desert filming is that we learn Shatner really had no idea what a unicorn is in popular culture. Granted, he’s Canadian, but I don’t think Canadian and American cultures are that different with regard to unicorns. And Shatner had been living in the US for decades. But in the original interpretation of Sybok (originally named Zar), Shatner sought to come up with a symbol of Zar’s violent and evil nature. And the best beast to represent that was the unicorn. In fact Shatner envisioned a battle scene where the unicorn spears a guy and then continues the battle with the guy’s body still impaled on its horn.

However, in spite of making some of these major changes from the original story, they still kept some of the initial concepts my father had envisioned. The holy man, whom they called Zar, still was a relatively dark and violent character, who rode a unicorn throughout his interplanetary adventures. The unicorn was an extension of Zar’s violent nature, to the point where my father had envisioned a battle scene where the unicorn had speared an unfortunate soldier who lay writhing and screaming in agony upon the unicorn’s horn while Zar rode on in triumph. 

Page 51 

This change in Sybok’s personality and methods also spawned another development. “Once we changed his character we also had to get rid of the unicorn, since the unicorn was an extension of his violent nature,” my father explained. “Also, since I don’t go to many movies, I was unaware of how many unicorns had been used in some of these science fiction films.” 

Page 57

No one knew what color a Nimbosian horse (the former Unicom) was supposed to be, or at what height his horn should rest on his forehead. They went through several tests first painting the horses gold and placing the horn high up between their foreheads. After seeing the tests on film, it became apparent the gold color didn’t register well. The horses also balked at seeing the shadow of something strange between their eyes. 

Page 96

Budget and story problems would continue to haunt the film, even up to its climax. It still seems strange that the studios exercise so much control over the budget. As we see blockbusters in the theater today, it often seems like controlling budget is an afterthought, but perhaps that’s how it looks from the outside.

In this movie, the studio significantly reduced the scope of the ending, despite what Shatner wanted.

‘But each of those Rockmen were incredibly expensive. We had to make a latex suit in which a man could fit, and the latex had to look like rock. The estimate for all six was something like $300,000. It was way too extravagant. So the first thing 1 was told was that I could only have one Rockman. One! So here I had gone from this fantastic image of floating cherubim turning into flying gargoyles, then to six, hulking Rockmen, now down to one Rockman. It was one of the first lessons I had in the realization that the movie in my head was going to be different from the one in reality. But I basically had i no choice, so we went with it. And one Rockman was all I got.” 

Page 71-72

Lisabeth Shatner also interviews other members of the cast. There are some fascinating discussions in there that illustrate the relationships among the actors. Deforrest Kelly seemed the most positive about the film. Since she is interviewing them in the middle of production, it’s a little hard to tell. The film may also have looked great to the actors during the creation of it.

Q: What did you think of the script for Star Trek V? 

I think that it is interesting in that it’s entirely different from any of the others, which is refreshing. Four was a wonderful motion picture, and you think, what are you going to do after IV? My feeling about films is that you can never tell about them until they’re strung together and scored and you look at it. Very seldom do you ever hear anyone come back from dailies and say that the dailies look terrible. You don’t know until you see the final product. But in examining the script I thought that it had an awful lot of things going for it, and if it comes together the way we all hope it will, I think it’s going to have a little bit of something for all the Star Trek fans, and hopefully that thirty-five percent of the audience that we picked up in IV will enjoy it. We have a great deal of the humor of IV once again, there’s conflict, adventure, and some powerful drama. 

Page 180-181

Walter Koenig seems resigned the fact that Chekov remains an under appreciated character. It’s also interesting how he sees it as film about taking control of your own life and destiny.

Q: What do you think this film is saying? 

A: That ultimately you have to take responsibility for your life and for what occurs. I think that probably that’s what this picture is about... My feeling is that the principal statement of the movie is: You can’t rely on the supernatural and you can’t rely on forces beyond your control to shape your own life. You have to take it into your own hands. That isn’t to say you can’t have faith, religious faith, etc. But not to throw off responsibility and let some other entity assume it for you. I think this story—and I try to couch it in the most positive way—has to do with the three main characters. The supporting group is really ancillary to the story. … If it’s a story of family, it’s a story about the family of the three top guys. Maybe that’s supposed to be a microcosm of the greater family. Maybe it’s supposed to represent a larger type family, the entire seven crew members that the audience has gotten to know know, the entire Enterprise, the universal family. Maybe that’s part of the design in the screenplay. If indeed that is the case. it’s focused on the three main people, though. 

Page 189 

Q: What do you think your character will be remembered for? 

A: I don’t have the faintest idea … In several episodes and in three out of the five films, Chekov has suffered some kind of physical trauma [he laughs] and I am frequently asked “Why is Chekov always getting beat up?” I would like to think of Chekov as a character that has some sense of fun, that perhaps is not as institutionalized an officer as some of the others. That there’s some irreverence about him . . . and I don’t know what else to say because ; the opportunities have been limited as to how the character has been developed. 

Page 190

Jimmy Doohan is relatively positive about the experience, or at least appears to be investing little personal energy in it. His answers lack the anger that comes through in his own book. Again that’s possibly because his is talking to Lis Shatner during the making of a William Shatner movie. That may have had a negative impact on his candor. He tries to treat it just like a job and he’s looking forward to his next vacation.

Q: Any challenges in this movie? 

A: No, not really. I’m working. I’ve been an actor for forty-three years. At the end of twenty years, you’re supposed to be a complete actor. When I was about eighteen or nineteen. I started to feel that, because I’d been told that by my acting teacher. I said, “How long will it take?” And he said, “Well, depends on the type of work you get. It’s about twenty years.’ And you know what? I started to feel that, a sort of sense comes over you where you think, “Hey, I don’t care what they ask me to do, I can do it.” That’s the thrilling part of it .. And a powerful feeling, knowing full well that at this moment in the scene, even though you still have to rehearse it, they’re either going to be laughing about you making just one face or sound, or they’re going to be crying. Or all the feelings in between. That’s why when people ask me if I want to be a director, I say, “No way!”I’m satisfied being an actor. The rest of the time I’m terribly interested in seeing the country. My wife doesn’t understand why I want another motor home. Within twenty months, I drove 52,000 miles in one. I take trips to places like Phoenix and Portland and Sacramento, etc. and sometimes I’ll bring the whole family. I have six children all together. Four boys, two girls. Two boys are living with me in the San Fernando Valley. 

Page 200

This book covers a lot of ground without being too long. The reader can get an idea of how this movie went off the rails while it was being made. It also has a nice bit of Star Trek history in it. It’s a worthwhile and fun read for anyone who wants to know more about the movie and the franchise in general. Experts in Star Trek may find little new ground, but the perspective is still interesting. “Captain’s Log: William Shatner’s Personal Account of the Making of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as told by Lisabeth Shatner” is a worthwhile read.

Advocating Jury Nullification in public can get you arrested

This case seems really shocking and appalling to me.

Retired professor Julian P. Heicklen was arrested for telling passersby outside the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan about Jury Nullification.  Jury Nullification is the philosophy that says a jury can vote "Not Guilty" in a criminal case if they disagree with the law, even if the the defendant actually broke it.

Some examples might be northern juries voting to acquit fugitive slaves in the pre-civil war era because the jurors opposed slavery. In modern times, it might be acquiting someone of marijuana posession because the jurors feels the Marijuana laws on personal use are offensive. On the darker side, it also includes segregation era juries acquitting those who attack civil rights activists because the jurors favored segregation

It seems that ultimately the reason we have citizen juries is to provide a check on the combined power of our Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.  If a juror doesn't feel the the defendent's actions are a crime deserving of punishment despite the facts presented by the state, it seems they have an obligation to vote "Not Guilty." There's a reason a jury is asked to vote "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." It's not asked to vote "True" or "False" on the prosecutor's case. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps my understanding of the issue is as thorough at that of legal philosophers.

But the questions of nullification isn't the one I'm really concerned about here. It's that the government arrested someone for telling people about it. He wasn't targeting jurors on a specific case or even jurors specifically.  He was talking to anyone out in public near the courthouse about nullification.

The first amendment is all about protecting speech, especially unpopular opinions. In an Op-Ed on the New York Times website, Paul Butler says:

The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.
... More

It outrageous that someone can be arrested for talking about this outside a government building.

You can read more about this case here:
Prosecution Explains Jury Tampering Charge
Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

Favorite Posts of 2011

These are ten of my favorites posts from 2011. They were fun to write. They aren't necessarily my highest traffic posts, or the posts that drew the most comments. If I compiled the list on a different day, the final selection might be different, but for now I'm satisfied.

Of course, this year it was a little easier to compile them because I wrote substantially fewer this year. It will be interesting to see if I have to shift to a top 5 at the end of 2012.

This list does not include book reviews, movie reviews, or posts that are part of a different series. They are listed separately in the sidebar.

2011-01-28
Importance of Audio

2011-01-30
Large Soda

2011-02-12
Technology to Change the World

2011-02-21
Riot Control

2011-03-19
Is it okay to ask if Maru is okay?

2011-04-19
Hurricane Ridge

2011-05-26
Municipal Wi-Fi is a Bad Idea

2011-07-17
Data Motivates

2011-08-04
Pawn Stars and Business Lessons

2011-10-27
RIP, Mr. Quigley

Movie Review 23: The Muppets

I’ve always been a big fan of the Muppets.  I grew up watching them on Sesame Street and on the Muppet Show on CBS. Later on I had a lot of fun watching the 7-Deadly Sins Muppet Show pilot at the Museum of Television and Radio and doing some voice and script work for our Playcole stop motion video “William Shatner on the Muppet Show.”

I also eagerly watched the previous Muppet film where we learn Gonzo is an alien. While not awful, that might be the low point of Muppet films.

I was skeptical about the new movie, but I needn’t have been. The Muppets was awesome and well exceeded my expectations.

In some respects, this film is a Muppet version of the Blues Brothers.

The movie follows the literal and metaphorical journey Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (a new muppet) take across the country and around the world.

Gary and Walter are brothers living in Smalltown, USA.  They do everything together, but Walter always feels alienated among other people until he first see the Muppet Show on TV.

Fastforward several years and Gary promises to take his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to LA for a trip. They bring Walter along for the journey.

Once they arrive in LA, the discover the Muppet Studios is crumbling and about to be sold to a Texas oilman and destroyed.  Thus begins a quest to find Kermit, get the whole band back together, and a put on a show to try and save the Muppet Studios.

The movie started off solidly, but the moment I really go on board was when they went to find Gonzo and the actions he takes to join the team.

The movie is funny and has plenty of heart. The jokes ranges from the silly, corny ones, to some really Meta ones that play with the idea of the characters being in a TV show and making a movie.

The music is catchy and fun. Jack Black is brilliant in his roll.

They also did s really nice job with Animal and gave him a little depth.  He was awesome to watch even when he wasn’t going Animal Crazy.

The cameos were mostly spot one, especially Jim Parsons.

An interesting concession to the passing of decades is that there is much less domestic violence in this movie than we usually get with the Muppets. I think Miss Piggy only beats one person and it’s not Kermit.

As a character, Mary doesn’t get as much of the story.I’m okay with that. While she does play Gary’s girlfriend, ultimately, the movie is not about her and Gary. It’s about Gary and Walter. It’s about Walter finding himself and Gary letting go of his childhood and redefining his relationship with Walter. While there is growth with Gary and Mary, Mary isn’t the driving force in the story. She’s an obstacle or challenge that needs to be dealt with and a pivot point for Gary’s development.

As Movies go, The Muppets is a winner.  It’s respectful of the Muppet traditions, doesn’t take itself too seriously, had great music, and gives many of our favorites their own moment to shine.

Old fan or new, check out “The Muppets.”

Movie Review 22: In Time

A few weeks ago the GF and I head to the theater to see “In Time.” The movie had gotten mediocre reviews and seemed to be slipping quickly out of the pop culture. Catching a 9:30 show should be no problem, right?  Forty-five minutes before hand it was sold out. That was the first of my In Time surprises for the evening.

In Time

In Time takes the idea of time=money to a new level.  Everyone is born with a time bank of one year in their body. They grow up normally until they turn 25. Then they stop aging completely.  They will look that way for the rest of their lives.  At the same time, they start drawing down on that time bank. A clock embedded into everyone’s arm ticks off the seconds and minutes.  When you’re out of time, you simply die.

People can transfer time to one another, however.  That makes it a currency. Workers get paid in hours for the hours they put in. A cup of coffee costs not just the time it takes to drink it, but the minutes you give to the coffee shop to purchase it.  Time can be transferred person-to-person or between people and machines.  The poor often live day-to-day or hour-by-hour. The wealthy have personal time banks of hundreds or thousands of years.

The difference between the rich and poor is striking. They live in completely separate areas (or “time zones” (cute)). It’s not that the poor are locked out, it’s just that they don’t have the time to pay tolls and costs.   You can tell who is poor and who is rich by how fast they move. The poor run everywhere; the rich have time to walk and waste.

The action starts when Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), a wealthy person, is tired of living.  He can’t see the justice in living forever with the elites while most of society simple drops dead when they run out of time. He meets Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) and gives him the rest of his time – about 100 years – with the simple instruction, “Don’t waste my time.” He then let’s his remaining minutes wind down and he dies.

And we’re off to the races.

I found this to be a very interesting movie in several ways. The basic story is fascinating; I love the concept. The philosophies and questions of right and wrong are interesting to ponder. The way it explores human nature if fascinating.  And stepping out of the movie world for a moment, the way this film fails is also terribly interesting to me.

I liked this movie, but I want to start by talking about it’s failure. I know it sounds terribly pompous, but I think of this in terms of the ancient Greek analysis of rhetoric. In order for a message to be successful, you have to address the Logos (appeal to logic), the Pathos (appeal to the emotion), and Ethos (based on the speaker’s moral character, expertise, competence, spirit, etc).  The problem with In Time is that it successful engages the Logos, but only barely engages in Ethos, and is a complete failure on Pathos. 

While I can appreciate this film on an intellectual level, it it utterly lacking in heart. The emotions are logical and expected, but I didn’t feel them in the audience. It failed to pull me in and get me to cheer for the hero and boo the underdog.

I think that’s the reason it didn’t get as much attention as it deserved. Most people don’t go to the movies primarily to think.  If they did, the documentary genre would have more box office hits.

People go to the movies for the sensory experience and to feel something.  In Time is a great thinking movie; it never successfully grabs the audiences’ hearts.

I did have several other problems with the movie. I didn’t really feel the sudden character change from guy-seeking-justice to Robin Hood.  It just happened suddenly.

They are also sloppy with the “Time Zones” and exactly what they mean. Early in the movie, the trip across them seem like it takes hours.  Later, it seems to take minutes.

The CGI for a car rolling down an embankment is just bad. And I’m really not buying how the characters keep escaping injury.

The ability to track and monitor minutes as they pass from one person to another seems inconsistent.

There are a few other things like that. It seems like the script needed a couple more revisions before being shot.

After reading all that, you might think I hated the movie.  I don’t. There are a lot of things it did well, but that’s mainly in the ideas they explored.

They explore the two different paths one can take when they receive a sudden gift of time or money. For some, it’s self destructive; for other’s it’s empowering.  It’s interesting to consider the high bankruptcy rates of lottery winners and other windfall recipients have in our world.

It explores the difference in behavior between those who have everything and those who have nothing to lose. The wealthy in the film become afraid of anything that might kill them (you can still die accidentally despite having centuries on your clock.  You’re time can also be stolen from you).

The poor, when pursuing what they perceive to be noble goals, will take risk and chances. As the Bob Dylan song goes, “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” In Time addresses it at the level of an individual gambler and at the macro level of the society at large.

I always like to be aware of that idea. It can inform negotiations, business strategies, and politics.  It’s an idea that can help explain some aspects of the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It also informs the situation surrounding the Palestinian issue in Israel, or the occasional summer riots outside Paris. 

Our own Occupy [insertnamehere] protests haven’t gotten too ugly because those protesting still have something to lose.

Extreme poverty and desperation are bad not just for the poor, but for the wealthy, too.  When people have nothing to lose, then taking a destabilizing chance is worth a shot.

One lesson my father taught me is that the most dangerous person in a bar isn’t the big guy. It’s the angry little guy in the corner who is at the end of his rope.

In Time touches on the differences between justice and law.  I mentioned Robin Hood earlier and that’s an element to the film. There’s also a very Inspector Javert story line. People in the film are not doing everything for their own self interests. Many characters, even the “villain” in the film are doing what they think is right – they are doing the best the can to help society be the best it can be.

It’s helpful to keep this in mind when dealing with politics and politicians, too. The opposition may or may not be corrupt. They may simply feel that what they are doing is the right thing – it is for the best – regardless of how I may feel about it. 

The movie explores what happens when someone who isn’t “supposed” to have resources suddenly does, and how society responds to that.

In Time explores what it means to flood an area with resources, the role of inflation in affecting those resources, and the role of organized crime when things get turned upside down.

The interesting thing about it (and I’m sure some will disagree) is that In Time is not a liberal screed against those who hoard resources. The movie raises the complicated issues of what happens when Robin Hood gets his way.

In short, I love the premise of the movie. I love the concepts it explores.  I do not care for the inconsistencies in the story and the film’s inability to emotionally connect with the audience. 

But it’s a movie that made me think. It left me with thoughts, impressions, ideas, arguments, and counter arguments bouncing around inside my skull. That I enjoyed.

If you want to think, watch this movies. If the last thing you want from a movie is for it to give you an opportunity to reevaluate the entire world financial system, then this is probably not the film for you.

 

You can find more of my movie reviews here.

Westlake Christmas Tree Lighting

On Black Friday I opted out of shopping (I've served my time in retail). In years past I've gone to the Holiday parade, but this time, the idea of sleeping late was just too appealing.  Besides, I've taken lots of pictures of the parade over the years:

• 2009
• 2008
• 2007
• 2006
• 2005

Normally it's rainy and on TV anyway.

This year, that turned out not to be the best solution.  It was oddly bright and sunny, and for some reason, no one saw fit to broadcast it on TV this year.

Despite the rough start, the day got better and the GF and I went to the tree lighting in Westlake Plaza. We were just two people among the 15,000 who turned out for the event.

The tree and the Macy's star were all set up and ready for the evening to start.






After and hour of sun setting, crowd plowing, musical renditions, a mayoral greeting (of course people boo'ed the Mayor), the finally lit the tree, carousel, and Macy's star. Then the fireworks started:




And then the cell phones came out. It's amusing how any major event these days is surrounded and captured by dozens or hundreds of cell phones, many of which are likely to do a poor job preserving the event. But they still come out.










The other iconic element of any major Seattle event remain the infamous pile of Starbucks cups. They tower on top of trash cans for miles around as a beacon for the Ghosts of Coffee Consumed.




But don't worry. It's okay. We recycle, tool.




Cell phones and Starbucks are not the only Holiday traditions we have in Seattle.  The season would be nothing without annual protesters.  Elements of our city were objecting to consumers and corporate dominance long before Occupy Wall Street made is cool.




Overall it was a fun evening and a swell day. It was a great way to green-light the rest of the Christmas season.




You can see a few more pictures of the event here.

RIP, Mr. Quigley

At our Junior/Senior Banquet the year I graduated from college, Brent Northup, our Carroll College Forensics coach (Go, Talking Saints!) was one of the speakers. He said that after graduation, we would pick up the alumni newsletter each quarter to find out who died. It was one of those moments that was equal parts morbid and terribly funny.

I thought back on comment last week when I opened the email from my High School’s alumni office and learned that my HS Forensics coach, Andrew Quigley, had just died.

It was quite a surprise because I can’t imagine Mr. Quigley was more than 10 years older than I. And, yes, nearly 25 years later, I still think of him at Mr. Quigley, and I do most adults I met prior to turning 18. But that’s not the point I’m making here.

I remember Mr. Quigley as a smart, nice, and patient guy. He had to be to put up with our team.

He started teaching at our school in 1987 when I was a Junior. That first year, he brought back the Archbishop Molloy Speech and Debate team after a multi-year hiatus. I don’t know why he decided to do that; it never occurred to me to ask. But that decision had a huge impact on my life.

Have you ever stopped to think about how the decisions that other people make for their own reasons can completely change the direction of your life?

I joined the team, and meet some great people. I met new people from my school and from neighboring schools we competed with in the Brooklyn Queens Catholic Forensics League and beyond.

That team is the reason I spent 2 weeks in 1988 at the Baylor University Speech and Debate camp in Waco, TX. I’d spend my entire life in NY up to that point, and on that trip I met people from entirely different cultures – the south and Colorado.

I learned to dramatically read poetry and prose. I learned to support and oppose a positions from both sides and to depersonalize conflict. I learned to process and dissect arguments. And I learned to think quickly.

We had a lot of fun at tournaments, even when we had to pile way too many people into one car to get there. We were a team and we had the team jackets to prove it.


And Mr. Quigley’s decision to start that team led me to one of the most important and best decisions in my life. That was the decision to go to college in a place many of classmates thought was imaginary – Helena, MT. I learned about and attended the school because of the Forensics team.

The skills I use in my job are the ones I learned on that college Speech and Debate team. The stuff I learned in class has less impact day-to-day.

Most of the people I’m still in regular touch with from High School are from the Forensics world. Most of my friends from College are also from the speech team. And the speech team is the reason I know everyone else that met there. I can’t imagine what path my career and social life post-college might have taken had I not gone down this path. And since things have turned out pretty well, I’m not sure I’d want to imagine it.

I guess there are a couple of key take aways from all this:

• It's cliché, but teachers have a huge impact on the direction of our lives. I wonder if Mr. Quigley had any clue as to the path he set me on.
• Speech and Debate (Forensics) is a fantastic activity for kids to pursue. The logical, social, communications and team work skills they can learn are invaluable in the future.

RIP, Mr. Quigley. And thanks from bringing that team to life.

Movie Review 21: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II

Okay, so this not going to be a lengthy review because:

1. It's been a few weeks since I saw the movie
2. You've likely already made your decision about whether or not to see the movie

I'll also touch on a couple spoilers so beware of that.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II is a fitting ending to the 8 movie series.  It also does a nice job of explaining the wand-swap and accidental horcrux plot twists that are key to the story. It's a little clearer than in the book.

The movie has an intense pace. The viewer never really has a chance to get bored. It moves from one intense scene to another quickly. Some are emotionally intense; others are action-packed.  I enjoyed the pacing, but it is tiring, and others may not appreciate that.

Most of the main characters get their moments in the film. Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Mrs. Weasley, Neville, Luna, and more all get their chance to shine.  One of my favorite moments is when McGonagall takes her place in running Hogwarts, and leads the defense. The moment she calls down the statues to battle is pretty awesome.

The scale and design of the battles is fantastic. There is a sense of danger, and there is plenty of tension through the long night and into to following gray morning. And the loss of friends and allies is keenly felt.

Here is one of the points I am a little disappointed in.  This is not just a criticism of the film, but the book as well. Tonks, Lupin, and Fred don't get much of a death scene. I would like to have seen them struggling valiantly against the enemies before finally falling, but that doesn't quite happen. We don't really get to see it. In some respects I feel cheated by that.

And maybe that's Rowling's point. Death isn't glorious or something to be celebrated. In battle people die. Perhaps giving them their big death scenes would undermine the idea of the darkness of their death. It may be that she didn't want to glorify death in battle.  I can appreciate that choice, even though I wanted to see more.

There's another choice Rowling made that I feel is a lost opportunity.  The point of the Tri-Wizard Tournament in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was to unite the Wizarding schools against the coming threat of Voldemort.  In the final movie though, the only representative from there is Fleur Delacour Weasly, and that's only because of her marriage.  In the epic battle, where was the Beauxbatons carriage or Durmstrang ship coming to aid or attack Hogwarts?  Failing to bring the schools back when it was really necessary is a missed opportunity. Or perhaps it could have been made clear that the schools had already been overrun by dark wizards leaving Howarts alone.  It could have really added something in either tone or action.

Those concerns don't take away from my enjoyment of the movie.  It's well worth seeing if you are a fan of the franchise.  If you haven't seen the other films, I wouldn't jump in here; go back to at least Part I. It's best if you go all the way back to the beginning, but I you'd rather not go back that far, at least go back to the Order of the Phoenix.

Pawn Stars and business lessons

Have you seen Pawn Stars?  It's basically a white-trash Antiques Road Show, but is oddly fascinating.

It's a reality show about a pawn shop in Las Vegas.  The folks on the show primarily come into the store to sell their items rather than pawn them. People sell family heirlooms, garage sale finds, and assorted things they have lying around the house.

There are reasons to watch it beyond the normal reality show train wreck -- the business lessons.  There are key things to learn about negotiation.

Don't name your price first.

When Rick buys anything from the customer, he always starts the negotiation by saying, "How much to do you want for it?" The customer names his price, and then Rick proceeds to talk them down.  Even if it was a price Rick was prepared to pay, he uses that as the benchmark to talk them down. The customer is never going to get the price they name.

Know the value of your item.  

Many times Rick has to bring in an expert to appraise and item because he's not familiar with it.  In some of those cases, the customer has an idea of the value, but is often wrong.  The only expert involved is the one Rick brings in.  Sometimes they're both surprised by the response.  Other times Rick might not even need and expert, but the customer has no idea what he even wants for the item.  Throughout most of the exchanges, the customer is at a disadvantage, and Rick controls the negotiation.  If you don't know they value of your item, there's no way you can be sure your're getting a good deal.

Be prepared to walk away.

Most of the time customers aren't in a position to say no.  Rick will often say no to a customer if he doesn't think he can sell an item.  Many of the customers are not willing to walkaway with  nothing. They will take as little at 10% of what they wanted sometimes.  If you can't walk away, you can't get a good deal.

Understand what your negotiating partner wants.

Rick almost always understands what his customers really need. They either need to quickly get money or they need to get stuff out of their house. His customers don't always understand Rick's needs.  Rick will tell customer what he claims he needs.  He needs to buy the item, at a low enough price to resell it. Based on the prices he cites, he expects to make 75% to 100% markup on the items he buys. And he expects items will often take a while to sell.  Customers are surprised at this, and they are not prepared to negotiate accordingly.  Whether or not that's a reasonable margin  may be a point to argue, but if the customer doesn't understand that, they are not as prepared.

There's a lot to learn about negotiating in this show. You can also learn some interesting things about the trinkets people bring in to sell.  And, of course, it's just plain good entertainment.

Are you a fan of the show? What lessons do you think viewers can learn from it?

Data Motivates

Wired's cover story this month is about feedback loops. The open the story by talking about how those trailers you sometimes see parked on the side of the road that tell you your speed are one of the most effective ways to actually get drivers to slow down.

In essence, people make changes to their behavior when they have more information about it.  The mind gets into ruts, and data provides the outside perspective that allows us to make the small changes we need to make to improve our lives.  I may be mangling the thesis a bit since it has been a couple weeks since I read the article, but it is worth checking out in full.

This is one of my favorite passages:

The true power of feedback loops is not to control people but to give them control. It’s like the difference between a speed trap and a speed feedback sign—one is a game of gotcha, the other is a gentle reminder of the rules of the road. The ideal feedback loop gives us an emotional connection to a rational goal.

And today, their promise couldn’t be greater. The intransigence of human behavior has emerged as the root of most of the world’s biggest challenges. [emphasis added] Witness the rise in obesity, the persistence of smoking, the soaring number of people who have one or more chronic diseases. Consider our problems with carbon emissions, where managing personal energy consumption could be the difference between a climate under control and one beyond help. And feedback loops aren’t just about solving problems. They could create opportunities. Feedback loops can improve how companies motivate and empower their employees, allowing workers to monitor their own productivity and set their own schedules. They could lead to lower consumption of precious resources and more productive use of what we do consume. They could allow people to set and achieve better-defined, more ambitious goals and curb destructive behaviors, replacing them with positive actions. Used in organizations or communities, they can help groups work together to take on more daunting challenges. In short, the feedback loop is an age-old strategy revitalized by state-of-the-art technology. As such, it is perhaps the most promising tool for behavioral change to have come along in decades.

...More

I've talked about components of feedback loops before, but not directly.  Most recently, I talked about the Fitbit.  A while ago, I wrote about the Wii Fit.  These are all tools that can help with weight loss by providing that data I need to make better decisions.  In the case of the Fitbit, it's shown I don't walk as much as I thought I did. In the case of the Wii Fit, the fact that it gave me scores at a minute level allowed me to make minor adjustments.

These benchmarks can provide a small, frequent, daily update of what I do.  To change the big things, I don't have to change the big thing.  It's about changing those little things.  Do enough of the little thing consistently well, and that results in the big change.

These other items provide the feedback necessary for the loop discussed in the article.

As sensors and mobile technology get smaller and ubiquitous, I wonder what kind of inputs to the feedback loop I'll be seeing in the future.

How do feedback loops and personal data impact your life?

Movie Review 20: Mr. Popper's Penguins

It would be hard to find a movie more different from Norwegian Wood than Mr. Popper's Penguins.

In this Jim Carey, family friendly movie, Carey plays a real estate developer (said in my best movie preview voice) who learns an important less about being human from a flock of silly birds.

Mr. Popper's Penguins

The movie is good for what it is. I had fun watching it.  Don't go to it expecting fine cinema; go to it expecting to see some fun hijinks, featuring the adventures of Captain, Stinky, Loudy, Bitey, Lovey, and Nimrod. They are the 6 adorable CG penguins that are tailor made of merchandising.

There are very few surprises in the movie; it's fairly cliched.  It starts wacky, becomes touching, moves to sad and tragic, and finally becomes happy and redeeming. There are some scary moments, and some really sad moments, but it's pretty easy to see what's coming next.

The CG is pretty good.  The penguins look realistic enough doing things that only vaguely penguin-related; it's not the graphics that give them away as fake birds.  If you can suspend disbelief over the penguins actions, then the computer effects will cause no problem.

If you like anthropomorphising penguins and want a cute, fun movie, Mr. Poppers Penguins is worth the hour and a half.  It has things for kids and things for adults.  Know what you're in for and enjoy the movie.

New Toy: The FitBit

A couple weeks ago I was in the San Francisco airport waiting for a flight to San Diego.  Then I stumbled across a machine of pure evil -- designed to suck more money from my pockets than the tightest slot machine in all of Nevada.  It was a Best Buy vending machine.

Have you seen these things? They are large vending machines that sell everything from $20 headphones to $300 cameras.  You simply pop in your credit card and watch as the cool looking machine grabs your new shiny thing and then presents it to you.  You want to spend more money just so this thing will keep bringing you electronics. Sure, it doesn't get as much traffic as the candy machine around the corner, but that machine isn't charging you $375 for a snickers bar, either.  

Of course the bright-shiny drew me in.  I scanned the shelves and then I saw the Fit Bit. I've thought about getting one of these for awhile.  I believe I first learned about it as Jason Calacanis extolled its praises during an episode of This Week in Tech.

The Fitbit is a fancy pedometer that ties in to a significant web presence.  It's very small and clips to my waist band as I walk through my day.  When I stop to recharge it, it uploads my data to the web.  It also comes with a wrist band so you can wear it at night.  Turn on sleep mode and it will track how long and how well you sleep.

It's incredibly dorky, quite a bit over-priced, and still pretty awesome.

I've learned a few things since I got it:

• I rarely walk 10,000 steps a day like I should
• I walk even less than I thought in a trade show booth.
• I have very high-quality sleep on those rare occasions when I actually do sleep.

As I pretend to work on getting into better shape, the Fitbit gives my one of the most important things to drive towards success. It gives me data.  It gives me number.  It helps me be aware of what I am actually doing (or not doing) so that I can take action as appropriate. And once again, Data sames the day.

In the future I hope to do better at hitting 10,000 steps a day. And hopefully many of those will be steps away from the electronics vending machine.  Vending machines for electronics goods will only succeed in pushing my retirement age back to 132. Damn shiny, awesome things.

Movie Review 19: Norwegian Wood

It will come as no surprise to my long time readers that Haruki Murakami is one of my favorite authors. I've reviewed several of his books here over the last several years, including:

• Dance, Dance, Dance
• The Elephant Vanishes
• Sputnik Sweetheart
• After Dark
• Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman

When people ask me which Murakami book they should read first, I always suggest Norwegian Wood. It is the most accessible of his novels. It has a reasonably straight forward plot, and the reader sort of know what happens at the end.

It's also strange and dark enough to give the reader an introduction to Murakami, but the plot is not so weird as to scare off the novice.  Plus it still has the beautiful language that is a mainstay of Murakami's work. And it's the only one that lends itself to a movie adaptation.

Last weekend (2011-06-11) the GF and I were lucky enough to catch the US premiere of Tran Ahn Hung's adaptation of Norwegian Wood, part of the SIFF. The UK website is here. The Japanese website is here.

It's a very good movie that does an effective job of capturing the tone of the book.  That means it's a dark, depressing story featuring characters with complex relationships and personal issues.  Since it's been several years since I read the book (it was before I even started this blog) I'd forgotten how the story ended.

The movie is in Japanese with English subtitles.  I was a little concerned about that because the magic of a Murakami novel is in the language and flow of the words.  Would subtitles fail to capture that essence or be too overwhelming? I needn't have worried. The Director opted to minimize the dialog in the film, and communicate Murakami's vision with the visuals.  There's relatively little exposition in the film and it works well.

The scenes that make up the film are snapshots of moments in the characters' lives rather than a continual or even flow from one to another. The director is giving the audience a lot of credit for following the story.  It moves forward in sections, and relies on the viewers to fill in the blanks.  Scenes jump, rather than transition, and it works well in this film.

Also striking is how the director used music. In most American films, it seems there is always music in the background, reinforcing the action and further building the tone.  In Norwegian Wood, the director takes the opposite approach.  He minimizes the music and let's a silent background or one of relevant environmental noise carry the scene. The audience hears almost as much water in the movie as it does music -- water in the form of crashing waves, rain pouring down, babbling streams, or bathroom vanities.

In some respects minimizing the music seems a little odd, since one of the selling points of the film is that the soundtrack was created by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood.  I'm not sure if this is common in foreign films, but it was certainly interesting to see and not hear, well, here.

The book and the film take place against the backdrop of student protests in Tokyo in the 60s.  While the protests do make their appearance in the film, I don't get the sense that they really needed to be here. Their influence on the main character is more pronounced in the book, but in the film, they almost feel irrelevant. The story feels like it could have taken place in 1985 as easily as it did in 1967. Placing the film in the 60s gave the director the opportunity to costume the actors in period appropriate garb, and to not use cell phones, but didn't feel like it impacted the core of the movie.

Those familiar with the book, may be wondering about the main character's roommate, whom he refers to as the Stormtrooper because of his intense, eccentric ways. He had a couple of appearances in the movie, but not many. It's too bad, because when he does appear, he's really funny. The flag raising ceremonies that also are a feature of the book are mostly left out, too.

It's too bad because those characters, and the deeper discussion of the protests help to reinforce the narrator's own sense of alienation and make it easier for the reader to go on the journey he pursues.  At the same, time, though, it could be that much of that material is better suited for the internal monologue of a book than for the more visual movie. After all, it's not those scenes that make a difference in the book; it's how the narrator reacts to them and feels about them. I can't really fault the film for that, but if you are looking for more of those aspects in the film, you may be disappointed.

The writers do a good job with the lost and generally damaged Naoko. Rinko Kikuchi plays the role well. She plays the delicate and at times dramatic character in a restrained way.  Kiko Mizuhara captures the confidence of Midori, but the script seems to cheat her a bit.  The character lacks the depth of Naoko in the film and as a result, it's more challenging to relate to the tension Ken'ichi Matsuyama's Toru Watanabe feels as he tries to navigate his and the two women's feelings.  Matsuyama himself plays Watanabe as confused and struggling to do what's right as he feels alone no matter what he does.  He seems to do an effective job with the role.

If you are not familiar with the story, know that it is not a happy one.  It's dark and strange. It explores the issues of alienation, grief, regret, depression, and suicide. There are extensive, frank discussions of sexuality.

That said, it is a very good movie.  It's reasonably faithful to the book and is and interesting alternative to the style I've come to expect from US movies. It's is beautifully shot, well acted, and a joy to listen to. It had treats for the eyes, the ears, the brain, and the heart.

But perhaps it's not the best choice for a first date.