The next time I decide to do a week-long series of articles about television shows, somebody hit me with a baseball bat! (But if you would, please make one of those plastic whiffleball bats; wouldn’t want brain bubbles scattered everywhere!)
Suffice to say TV Tuesday was a grueling exercise. Trying to pack so much into each post without going over my self-imposed limit of 1200-15oo words was tough, and I’m not entirely happy with the results. There wasn’t much depth to any of it, but I’m going to look at them as foundations for future discussion. And it was nice to record a list of my television raves and rants in interweb stone, so there is that.
Today I’m going to kick back a bit before getting into much meatier topics and just serve up some post editing notes:
In the last couple weeks I’ve learned that, while I can write computer code with music playing, I need silence for writing text. Or, at the least, music without words. That actually seems like a “Duh!” moment, but I’ve gotten so used to music while I code, it just seemed a natural thing to do. Put on the tunes…
Nope. Lesson learned!
I have a pen and paper by my bed for noting down those falling asleep and waking up thoughts. Good also for recording dreams. Now I need some sort of waterproof setup for the shower. It’s rough trying to hold on to all three good ideas you had until you can get to pen and paper!
Maybe something like SCUBA divers use.
For the record, my friends, it’s, “Hear! Hear!” and not “Here! Here!” The phrase comes from British Parliament and is short for, “Hear him! Hear him!” It was originally intended for directing attention to a speaker, but came to mean an agreement with the speaker. Either way, it’s “hear” and not “here.”
Now you know.
Am I the only one that hates the modern television trick of putting the talking heads in front of a crowd of people? Am I the only one who hates trying to watch the talking heads only to be constantly distracted by a bunch of “Hey, look I’m on TV!” jackasses waving and cavorting in the background?
In some cases, the crowd noises are so loud the talking heads have to shout to be heard. This is good television? Or have we pretty much just given up on actual content these days?
Readers of my blog know I have a thing for Wikipedia links in my posts. I have a high regard for Wikipedia, and it’s a key resource I start with when researching something. For technical, historic and arts-related material, it’s actually quite good, and studies have shown it to be at least as accurate as paper encyclopedias. Likewise the related resource, Wiktionary.
On the other hand, its search engine is pathetic! Google blows it out of the water. For one example, I can never remember how to spell Marshall McLuhan‘s name, so I usually have to look it up. Recently, I intended to link to his Wikipedia article, so I searched Wikipedia.
Remember, I’m fumbling through the spelling… here’s what Wiki offered:
Who is Marshall McQueen?
So I tried Google. As you see, Google was ahead of me (as usual):
And when I accepted the entry, look at the first search result:
Here’s Wiktionary being just as pathetic. Recently I needed to find the spelling of the word (for wedding) that sounds like “neptuals” in my head.
Of course, that’s wrong, and Wiktionary wasn’t at all helpful:
Neptunes? Seriously?? [sigh] Okay, back to Google:
Yes, thank you! Nuptials!
Wikis, you know I love ya, but damn!
Why do both critics and audiences hate both movies Johnny Dangerously and Johnny Mnemonic? I’ve heard a theory that movies with “Johnny” in the title never do well.
The first (I think) is a total hoot with a great cast, and I’ve enjoyed it every one of the several times I’ve watched it. And come on! It’s directed by Amy Heckerling, who also did Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Clueless. (Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 47/61, so obviously some movie goers liked it.)
The second is a fairly interesting science fiction film and a rare case where Keanu Reeves was perfectly cast. (Casting him as Klaatu in the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still was one of the few things I liked about that movie. Another perfect role for Reeves.) Rotten Tomatoes gives this one only a 14/33, which makes me sad.
I’ve been wanting to get that one off my chest for a long time!
Klaatu barada nikto!