J.J. Abrams dopo i successi di Mission Impossible 3 e Cloverfield sta per ultimare insieme a Damon Lindelof la produzione della sua ultima creatura cinematografica "Star Treck XI", subito dopo sarà pronto per lanciare su FOX una nuova serie tv che si preannuncia già un successo soprattutto dopo le esperienze con Alias, Lost e Felicity, la nuova idea di JJ Abrams si chiamerà "Fringe" e sarà una serie sci-fi, la serie è annunciata come un x-files con elementi di Lost, l'episodio 1x01 di Fringe, della durata di 90 minuti, sarà trasmesso da Fox america il prossimo 26 agosto e successivamente verrà collocata nel palinsesto subito dopo House.
Nel cast sono presenti molti volti televisivi noti, fra cui troviamo Joshua Jackson di Dawson's Creek e Lance Reddick l'attore che interpreta il misterioso Matthew Abbandon in Lost mentre la nuova protagonista femminile sarà Anna Torv.
Come per Lost anche in questa nuova serie il tutto inizierà da un aereo, non sarà il volo 815 ma bensì il volo 627, siccome Abrams è Abrams anche in questa occasione non è riuscito a resistere e ha inserito anche questa sua creazione una "componente Lost", infatti se sommiamo i numeri del volo magicamente ci troviamo di fronte al 15 uno dei numeri maledetti di Lost.
La storia inizia con l'atterraggio a Boston del volo 627, si scoprirà fin da subito che qualcosa non va infatti tutti i passeggeri e l'equipaggio sono deceduti in modo raccrapricciante, da qui l'agente Olivia Dunham insieme a Peter dovrà fare luce sull'accaduto, lo sviluppo dell'investigazione li porterà a qualcosa di veramente sconvolgente.

The cast includes some hot friggin guys!   AND Winona Ryder!

	Chris Pine	...	Kirk
	Zachary Quinto	...	Spock
	Eric Bana	...	Nero
	Winona Ryder	...	Amanda Grayson
	Zoe Saldana	...	Nyota Uhura
	Karl Urban	...	Leonard 'Bones' McCoy
	Bruce Greenwood	...	Christopher Pike
	John Cho	...	Hikaru Sulu
	Leonard Nimoy	...	Spock
	Simon Pegg	...	Scotty
	Anton Yelchin	...	Pavel Chekov
	Greg Ellis	...	Chief Engineer Olson

From panelist Karen Schneider:

"Sometimes place does matter." When considering a single global catalog for all libraries, there can be too much of a disconnect between records users are looking at and where physical items actually are. Catalogs should feel freer to include imperfect data though in union catalogs. The ideal catalog is a hybrid of local and national.

"Shoot the doma." How can we make any assertions about what is better or worse in catalog design until we develop evidence-based practices? We need to operate based on evidence and research rather than opinion and tradition.

"Libraries should be helping design the systems they use." It would be great to have a technical expert on every library staff.

We have to get comfortable with collecting metadata on our patron's use practices to improve our services. Patrons already share their information voluntarily (example: Librarything). Are we harvesting this data?

We assume patrons want to interact with librarians. What if they would prefer to engage with one another? Would fiction readers rather get recommendations from librarians or from fellow fiction readers?

From panelist Steven Abrams:

Have you ever gone into a store to shop for a dress and had the sales person direct you to their electronic inventory on a computer and then had the sales rep walk away leaving you to the computer and your own confusion? There's probably a reason you haven't!

Is your library catalog full text searchable by Google? If not, use the newest Google api to do so!

What about putting an automatic Meebo interface prompt on failed searches to interact with users and help them find out what they want.

Data mining patron behavior and use would allow us to better serve patrons. Why do libraries promote best sellers, for instance, rather than the most frequently checked out at their branch location? Librarians suffer from an innumeracy problem.

We have to know what things cost. Should you ILL with costs of $30 for an item that only costs $5 to buy on Amazon?

From panelist Karen Coyle:

Only 3 % of library users start their search in an OPAC. This means the LAST place our patrons are looking for information is in the catalog.

We are too rule bound. Example: Karen posted on a cataloger discussion board and asked "Why don't we use title case?" Expert catalogers could only guess. This is not a good enough reason to do something.

Against one big catalog. Data can be different and still exchanged. A single catalog solution prevents experimentation and shuts out small players. Example: One library builds their catalog on Wordpress.

Coyle looks forward to a future where library management software is separate from the OPAC user interface.

Final thought "We need to learn to trust our users."

From panelist Joe Janes:

OPACs are like roach motels: easy to get into from the library homepage, impossible to get back out of.

If Google provides us with services like embedded bus schedules in Google maps, then what place does reference have in libraries? Will libraries be more service oriented in the future rather than information centered?

Full text searching would be great, but we still need some metadata. Example: fiction books would benefit from genre and character tagging.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts at the moment:

I sense two veins of thought that were going on in the debate. Abrams' example about not going to Nordstroms and being turned over to an inventory catalog to find your dress and Janes' example about Google wanting to digitize all the books and become the single information source lead me to think that the future of libraries is in service. That is, libraries will exist not to store information, but to teach people how to access information. Just because Google invents a service that lets users see bus schedules inside Google maps, that doesn't mean that people know that service exists. I, for one, did not know about this feature until Janes mentioned it. Therefore, libraries are still relevant if librarians stay early information adopters and can lead their patrons to sources like the Google bus scheduler when they come in.

The second vein of thought actually contradicts the first one in part. This thought says, like Schenider and Abrams say, that libraries should become more savvy and involved in the creation of information resources and NOT be passive users. Schneider would like to see people with software development experience on every library staff. Can libraries afford to do this? Are there enough qualified librarians to do this? If Google becomes THE information provider, would it be a waste of time to do so much in-house catalog development? On the other hand, if libraries do not become more assertive about their catalogs, then they remain consumers at the mercy of large and sometimes out-of-touch vendors.

Regardless, I am very glad that Karen Schneider brought up the point about libraries needing to become more evidence-based. I work in a medical library and the idea of evidence-based thinking is at the heart of helping our nursing students do research. We really should be able to practice ourselves what we are preaching to others.

What do you think? Did any of the ideas brought up by the panelists here strike a nerve with you?

When this tank debuted, people were aghast at the cost. What they didn't realize was it was acutally the result of an extreme cost cutting program. For 20 years, the Army had been cooperating with Germany to develop a sucessor to the M-60 series of tanks, but each iteration had become too complex and too costly. The Army finally decided that they would develop a tank using technology shared with the Germans rather than develop a tank to be used by both countries.

One of the sticking points was the main gun. The standard US tank gun was the 105mm M68. The Army thought this was sufficient to defeat current and projected Soviet armor (and were pretty much right).

The Germans had developed the excellent 120mm smoothbore, and wanted both countries tanks to use it. Our Army resisted for a couple of reasons. The biggest was cost. The new gun would have to be license produced here, with associated setup costs. Even more expensive would be providing stocks of ammunition for the gun. The Army had a huge stockpile of 105mm ammunition already. Buying an entirely new stockpile in the tight budgets of the 1970s wasn't an attractive option.

In the end, the 105mm won-sort of. The decision was to place the M-1 into production with the 105mm, but make provision to add the 120mm in the future. As it turned out, for various reasons, this was a lot harder than anyone expected. Still, partly as a sop to our German allies, and partly over concern about the ability of the 105mm to defeat future Soviet armor, the 120mm was adopted for the M1A1 that entered service in 1988.

One disadvantage of the 120mm was a reduced ammo load. An M-1 with the 105mm carries 55 main gun rounds. An M-1A1 carries 40. As it turns out, however, few tanks will shoot their entire basic load in a single battle. In fact, not a single tank in Desert Storm fired its entire basic load.

Tankers, ever wonder why the coax on your tank has that massive 4000 round load? Because that's where the designers originally wanted to put the 25mm M242. The only reason it didn't make it into the final design was cost. Leaving the 25mm out saved about $100,000 just for the gun, and made the fire-control system simpler, and hence cheaper. 

Finalmente a cine biografia de Che Guevarra do diretor Steven Soderbergh, tem uma previsão de estréia, segundo o site Omelete, a primeira parte deverá estrear aqui em fevereiro. Principalmente porque Benício Del Toro que interpreta Che deve ser indicado ao Oscar, não esquecendo que ele já ganhou o prêmio de melhor ator em Cannes.
A cinebiogarafia foi dividida em duas partes, a que vai estrear aqui em fevereiro conta o período que Che junto com Fidel destronam o ditador Fulgêncio Batista, a segunda é focada na derrocada na Bolívia, e começa com o belíssimo discurso de Che na ONU em 1964. Infelizmente a segunda parte não tem previsão de estréia por aqui.

Bruno, a nova comédia estrelada por Sacha Baron Cohen, criador e intérprete de Borat entre outros papéis, já tem data para estrear nos EUA, será no dia 15 de maio de 2009, e vai concorrer junto com outra grande estréia Anjos e Demônios.
Na história Sacha é Bruno um austríaco gay que faz cobertura de moda, mas claro sempre colocando seus entrevistados ao ridículo, isso quando ele entrevista homens homofóbicos e revela no meio da entrevista que estão participando de um programa gay! Deixo aqui uma amostra do personagem.

J.J Abrams e sua produtora Bad Robot já tem um novo e interessante projeto para o cinema. O filme será baseado no artigo intitulado “ Mystery on Fifth” que foi publicado recentemente no jornal New York Times, agora vem a parte mais interessante, o artigo conta a história de dois pais consultores financeiros em Wall Street que deram um apartamento de luxo no bairro de Upper East Side para os seus quatro filhos pré-adolescentes.
Até ai nada demais, mais o grandioso apartamento foi decorado com passagens secretas, mensagens, quebra-cabeças, códigos, poemas, jogos e até trilha sonora especifica! O apartamento tem 1.280 metros quadrados, o projeto foi feito pelo famoso designer e arquiteto Eric Clough que criou esse universo.
Se você não acreditou, veja com os seus próprios olhos as fotos do apartamento, com certeza na mão de Abrams essa história pode se tornar um excelente filme.

Uma nova versão cinematográfica da história de Robin Hood vai ser dirigida pelo ótimo diretor Ridley Scott e claro Russel Crowe vai atuar no filme, repetindo a dupla de filmes como Gladiador, Um bom ano e recentemente O Gângster.
Na história Crowe será o xerife de Nottingham, que depois de lutar nas Cruzadas ao lado de Ricardo, Coração de Leão retorna para casa e tenta conduzir os antigos sonhos do rei morto. A fraca atriz Sienna Miller será Maid Marian, por enquanto o intérprete de Robin Hood não foi revelado.

The Curious Case of Benjamim Button, novo filme do diretor David Fincher (Zodíaco) ganhou o seu primeiro e interessante trailer, para ser sincero já existe faz um tempo uma versão em baixa resolução, mas esperei sair uma versão em alta para colocar aqui.
O filme é uma adaptação do conto homônimo de F.Scott Fitzgerald, na história um homem comum Benjamin Button (interpretado por Brad Pitt) que começa do meio do nada a rejuvenescer, para pior ele se apaixona por uma mulher, vivida pela atriz Cate Blanchett.
O filme estréia no dia 2 de janeiro no Brasil.

Sim a caixa do PC é aquele Tanque enorme, o M1A2 Abrams.

Quando for grande quero ter uma caixa assim!=p

Isto só porque o gajo gosta do jogo Battlefield 2 e porque pode.

(reparem no pormonor do teclado ao lado)

Fonte bestcase scenario.

Também no Blog dos #abandon@dos

El dúo Frank Darabont - Stephen King vuelve una vez más con un resultado muy esperanzador. Esta película es la adaptación de un relato del famoso escritor de Maine que se publicó en 1979 con el mismo nombre. Este film, dirigido por Frank Darabont, sorprenderá al espectador por un final tan asombroso como inesperado. Esta vez, Darabont se atreve con una historia de terror, y se aleja de la bélica, la milla verde y de la entretenida Cadena Perpetua.

Pero el argumento no es lo único destacable de este film, puesto que la labor del director es impagable. La cinta está perfectamente editada y la música hace que acabemos de pegarnos a la silla. La historia está repleta de momentos de acción y otros más sosegados formando un equilibrio perfecto. Es una de las mejores películas de terror de los últimos años. El director, Frank Darabont, saboreando todavía las buenas críticas y los beneficios de su último trabajo, ya prepara una nueva adaptación de La larga Marcha del escritor americano. Este Reallity macabro ya fue llevado a la televisión en los años 80 con la actuación estelar de Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Ahora estamos a la espera de la adaptación de la historia más epica de este director: la torre oscura. Roland, el misterioso pistolero protagonista de esta serie, aparece en un cuadro de la recien estrenada La niebla . JJ. Abrams, creador de series tan exitosas como Alias y Lost (Perdidos), ya trabaja en este proyecto. King está encantado con este proyecto, de que todavía no se sabe si se desarrollará para cine o televisión.

Oriol Fernández Rodríguez

Enjoy JJ Abrams and the Mystery Box as the VOTD.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1275146&w=425&h=350&fv=bgColor%3DFFFFFF%26file%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fstatic.videoegg.com%2Fted%2Fmovies%2FJJABRAMS-2007_high.flv%26autoPlay%3Dfalse%26fullscreenURL%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fstatic.videoegg.com%2Fted%2Fflash%2Ffullscreen.html%26forcePlay%3Dfalse%26logo%3D%26allowFullscreen%3Dtrue]

Un vuelo internacional procedente de Alemania realiza un aterrizaje forzoso en el aeropuerto de Boston pero nadie sale de su interior. Todos sus pasajeros y tripulación parecen haber sufrido una terrible y misteriosa muerte. El FBI asigna el caso a la agente Olivia Dunham y esta termina recurriendo al Dr. Walter Bishop, el Einstein de nuestra generación (y también un pirado que ha pasado los últimos 20 años en un centro psiquiátrico), para que la ayude a resolverlo junto a su hijo Peter. Lo que desconocen es que lo ocurrido en el vuelo 627 tan sólo es una pequeña parte de algo mucho mayor e impactante.

Como veis es un caldo de cultivo para especulaciones y pajas mentales varias que tanto gustan a la muchachada. ¿Tendrá relación con el final de Perdidos?¿Con la de desencadenantes que se pueden inventar para comenzar la serie, por qué otro vuelo?¿Habrá tías buenorras?¿Amarillos?¿Negros?¿Calvos hijos de puta?¿Humos negros?¿Quién mató a Kennedy?¿Dónde está la tumba de Hitler?¿Miyamoto es en realidad una mujer?¿A qué huelen las nubes?.

En el extenso elenco de actores, otra de las marcas de la casa de Abrams, encontramos caras tan conocidas como Joshua Jackson (Pacey en Dawson Crece), Lance Reddick (Matthew Abaddon en la 4ª temporada de Perdidos), Kirk Acevedo (de la extraordinariamente fantástica y genial The Black Donnellys) o John Noble (Denethor en El Señor de los Anillos), pero es que además, el staff tampoco se queda corto y junto a los guionistas Roberto Orci y Alex Kurtzman (Transformers, Misión Imposible III, Alias) tenemos a cargo de la dirección a Alex Graves (ganador de un Emmy por El Ala Oeste).

No se vosotros, pero yo se de un freak que se va a empezar a morir de ganas de ver una serie que parece llamada a llenar el hueco dejado por Expediente X .

TRAILER 1

TRAILER 2

Nola is on the right, and her sister, Elaine is on the left. This pic was taken somewhere in Vancouver in the 50's, likely by a street photographer, which is someone who takes random pictures and then tries to sell them to you.

Written by JJ Abrams (Lost, Alias, Cloverfield) and the writers behind Transformers, as well as being directed by one of the directors of The West Wing, this looks a bit like The X-Files mixed with, yes, Lost. Joshua Jackson couldn't act his way through his own heart attack, but then again people said the same thing about David Duchovny, and look at him now...... Or don't. Yeah, don't, cos it counter-acts against the point we were trying to make. Also, Abrams, get over planes and stuff that happens weird in or around them already!

Next, Dollhouse:

With Buffy, Angel, Toy Story, Firefly and Serenity all under his writing/creating belt, Joss Whedon is pretty much gold right now. Even if they do keep cancelling his shows early. Anyway, Eliza Dushku (yum) is back on TV after Tru Calling got cancelled and her film career stalled. This mix of Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind and The Stepford Wives potentially has potential, if Whedon doesn't fly up his own ass again and start making everything more complicated than needs be.

Both these shows will be premiering in the States this month, and after their (pretty much guaranteed) success, we should get them come fall. Or just stream them online. Ya know, whatever.

Not much to say about this one other than a great idea by FOX to keep viewers watching.

Nato con il nome di 1-18-08, CLOVERFIELD si presenta come un esperimento coraggioso e capostipite di una lunga serie di cloni...

C'è poco da fare. Quando una persona nasce con un estro e un genio cinematografico al pari del produttore J.J. Abrams tutto quello che tocca si trasforma in oro. Se poi ci aggiungiamo un buona quantità di denaro ed un gran coraggio sperimentale, quell' oro, si trasforma in successi tangibili.

Dopo Lost ecco che Abrams decide di riportare tra di noi il surreale nel reale, ma questa volta su grande schermo. Cloverfield non è facile da classificare. Non me la sentirei di paragonarlo a film come Godzilla o King-Kong, nonostante tutti e tre abbiano in comune creature gigantesche che, buone o malvagie che esse possano essere, distruggono tutto ciò che si para dinnanzi al loro cammino. Non è nemmeno paragonabile ad un action movie, o ad un fantasy. O al pari potrebbe essere tutte queste cose messe assieme. Ma no! Cloverfield è semplicemente qualcosa di "Nuovo ma vecchio", partorito in un'era regnata dalla computer grafica nella quale si pensava di aver ormai dato vita a tutto l'inimmaginabile.

Cosa vi aspetta sedendovi davanti al televisore ed inserendo, l'ormai uscito, dvd di Abrams? Semplice: un capolavoro o un film inguardabile. Senza fraintendere ne spiego subito il motivo. Ciò che caratterizza Cloverfield su tutto è l' idea "genialstupida" di averlo girato interamente con camera a mano. Cosa significa? Semplice! Avete presente quei dannati filmini delle vacanze che l'amico di turno vi propina al ritorno dalla sua vacanza in Egitto dove, anche volendo ammirare su schermo una delle piramidi da lui visitate, non vi è verso per i continui ondeggiamenti, zoomate, scatti veloci, e così via? Ecco! Questa è la camera a mano. Cloverfield si presta infatti a essere un'esperienza unica anzichè un film, una sorta di documentario... un esperimento. E' come se noi fossimo il cameraman. Non ci sono veri e propri tagli se non il naturale standby che inseriremmo dopo cinque minuti non-stop di riprese. Vuoi perchè ci faccia male la mano, vuoi perchè non ci sia nulla di interessante da filmare. Quindi questo è quanto: o vi appassionerete talmente tanto alla vicenda narrata da rimanere incollati alla poltrona stringendo l'avambraccio del vostro vicino fino a farlo divenir paonazzo perchè VOI ne siete ormai i protagonisti... oppure uscirete da dove vi trovate perchè vi scappa da vomitare. Ed è per questo,che Abrams ha avuto dannatamente coraggio.

La camera a mano è il modo più naturale di utilizzare una cinepresa. Cloverfield è il filmino amatoriale, il "real-document" che tutti avremmo potuto girare se, trovandoci ad una festa con la nostra nuova handycam, stessimo girando un video ricordo per un amico in partenza per il Giappone e, d'improvviso, qualcosa di catastrofico accadesse fuori dalla finestra. Questo è stato il coraggio di Abrams. Il rispolverare la tecinca cinematografica più naturale ed economica e sbatterla sul grande schermo. Due infatti erano le possibilità. Un successo globale o un flop colossale. Diciamo subito che l'ha spuntata la seconda ipotesi. Come detto prima, il pubblico avrebbe potuto essere restio dinnanzi ad un video così stranamente "vero". Invece ha accolto la novità con entusiasmo tanto che, subito dopo, altri film come "rec" ed altri in produzione, hanno deciso di adagiarsi sugli allori cresciuti grazie a Cloverfield cominciando a spuntare come funghi. Ma non è facile riuscire a copiare con successo un fenomeno così particolare, destinato a vivere in solitudine al quale, anche un proprio seguito, rischierebbe di guastare soltanto.

Il film diretto da Matt Reeves comincia così: una festa. Una semplice festa in tipico stile americano con decine di invitati a popolare un loft situato nei piani alti di un edificio. Le bellezze di turno non mancano e striscioni appesi dappertutto fanno capire che non sia un semplice party. Sono infatti tutti in attesa del festeggiato. Robert (Michael Stahl-David), avendo ottenuto una importante carica manageriale, è in partenza per il Giappone. I suoi amici e suo fratello decidono così di organizzargli un "addio" in grande stile. Nell' attesa del suo arrivo ecco che spunta fuori una videocamera... e da qui comincia il film. Un amico di Robert si aggira tra gli invitati raccogliendo testimonianze d'amicizia e cari saluti destinati al partente. In questo mentre, che dura una buona ventina di minuti, si cominciano a scoprire i tanti back-ground (storie) dei vari protagonisti e co-protagonisti. Amori, odi, vicende. Tutto questo fino al momento clou in cui, dopo l'arrivo di Robert, qualcosa accade. La terra trema, la luce si spegne. I telegiornali annunciano una pesante scossa di terremoto ma, fuori dalla finestra, è ben altro ciò che vedremo. Meteoriti ed esplosioni illuminano la città come fosse la notte di capodanno. La gente si riversa nelle strade. Detriti cadono, palazzi esplodono e... la testa della statua della libertà rotola a terra travolgendo tutto ciò che incontra. Un terribile mostro sta devastando la città. Da questo momento in poi il vostro respiro non ha un attimo di pace.

Come detto prima, in Cloverfield, nulla è lasciato al caso. E' una macchina perfetta ed è tutto calibrato alla perfezione. La regia di Matt sarebbe pressochè ingiudicabile data la sua natura, ma non è così. L' impeccabilità di una finta mala-ripresa la rende degna di nota. Nessun dettaglio viene perso. E' sempre ottimamente concentrata sul focolare dell' azione, sulle espressioni di ogni singolo individuo, su tutti i tratti caratteristici di ogni personaggio, compreso il cameraman che si vede in poche sporadiche apparizioni, e che ci permette di vivere appieno diverse storie concentrate in un unico insieme. Soprattutto, grazie ad una trovate geniale, veniamo a conoscenza della storia d'amore (finita presumibilmente male) tra il protagonista Robert ed un bellissima ragazza presente alla festa. Durante il film, infatti, la vicenda principale verrà spezzata da frammenti di filmato che mostrano i due innamorati durante una giornata di divertimenti. Questa assoluta genialata non solo fa capire che il film dura effettivamente 60 minuti come una mini-dv, ma che è proprio una mni-dv quella che stiamo vedendo, con tanto di sovraregistrazione e salti di frame. Il ritmo serrato e caotico viene attenuato da tutto ciò, senza però far mai calare la tensione. Anzi, l'aumenta così come aumenta lo spettacolare senso di immedesimazione. Cloverfield sembra quasi un videogioco.

Il film è un crescente d'azione degenerante tra splatter e "vedo-non vedo", intepretato da giovani attori poco conosciuti ma già degni di nota per aver contribuito a dar vita ad una delle "creature" più contorte degli ultimi anni. Il film è una corsa contro il tempo, un inno alla vita, un sentimento riversato su pellicola. Nascosto dietro ad un enorme mostro computerizzato si cela una storia senza capo nè coda ma perfettamente generata che soddisfa alcune domande lasciandone altre aperte non solo alla fantasia dello spettatore, ma anche alla sua voglia di saperne di più. Cloverfiel è a questo punto più di un film... è un fenomeno. Sulla rete, infatti, si trovano diversi indizi sulle origini del mostro , che nel film non vengono spiegate, e su altri quesiti irrisolti attraverso finti ma "apparentemente" veri blog e fansites. Una cosa che a molti potrebbe infastidire, soprattutto per il senso di incompletezza lasciato dal finale, ma che potrebbe appassionare la stragrande maggioranza.

Cloverfield è insomma un film che viene amato alla follia o odiato dall' inizio. E' comunque un esperimento che vale la pena di provare. Aspettando notizie su un fantomatico sequel (forse evitabile a meno che non si tratti di un "film" non più con camera e mano che spieghi tutto per bene) potete guastarvi il dvd di ottima fattura con qualche extra (tra i quali i due finali alternativi... non "molto" alternativi) e qualche notizia che potrà forse soddisfare qualche curiosità in più.

Voto senza dubbio 9 già solo per il coraggio dimostrato da Abrams!

Andrea Davi

Whether you support her or not, you have to give her credit for not giving up easily. Hillary spent Mother's Day in West Virginia in a effort to take that state's primary on Tuesday. Obama spent the weekend in Chicago counting his chickens before they've hatched by planning his post convention campaign. Clinton is currently the picture of tenacity as she continues in a campaign that many have declared officially dead. She has stated that she is in it until June and it appears that she means it. One thing's for sure, Hillary is going down swinging if she goes down at all. She may surprise everyone by having a political near death experience. Everybody out of the way. Charge up the pads. Clear. We've got a heartbeat.

MAN KILLS NEIGHBOR OVER PLAYSTATION

Edward Stoddard Jr. from Land O Lakes, Florida, suspected his neighbor, Douglas Abrams of borrowing his Playstation 3. The two apparently argued over it and Stoddard shot Abrams, killing him. I would say this guy needed to get a life but now that's not an option. He's currently housed in the Dade County lockup awaiting trial. Well I bet he won't get his PS3 in prison. He's going to learn about a brand new game, It's called "Bend over I'll drive." The graphics are very realistic.

NEIL YOUNG SPIDER

Neil Young has had a spider named after him. An East Carolina University biologist named Bond, Jason Bond, has discovered a new species of Trap Door Spider and has named it after his favorite musician, Myrmekiaphila neilyoungi. Why a trap door spider reminds him of Neil Young has eluded me but hey it's a nice gesture anyway.  Bond says that spiders are determined from one species to the next by differences in their genitalia. Now I'm really lost as to what this has to do with Neil Young. Is he an exgroupie? Does he know something about Neil the rest of us don't? It make you want to go HMMMM. 

BATMOBILE ON EBAY

Apparently the Tim Burton Batmobile is going up for auction on Ebay for half a mil. It can't be coincidence that this is just in time for the release of the new Batman movie "the Dark Knight." Yes, you can now cruise around pretending that You, Yes, you can be the caped crusader. Now if you can get one of your friends to don the idiot tights of Robin you can hit the bars. It should send all the girls to you because they certainly aren't going to him. Buy a beer for the "Wingman."

DOG FOUND IN TRUCK ENGINE

I may know whay you vehicle has been running doggy lately. Have you ever opend up the hood of your vehicle and found a ...dog? Squirrels, chipmunks, I've come across a lot of small critters in there but never a dog. Walter Witthoef opened the hood of his F-150 and there staring at him was a stuck pit bull terrier. He had somehow wriggled his way into the back of the engine and was impatiently waiting for someone to let him out or give him a biscuit. To amuse himself while he waited, he sat and chewed on everything in sight. Ah boredom. Animal services arrived and freed the dog who was then reunited with his owner, none the worse for wear. Next time your vehicle won't start, check the plugs, check the wires and don't forget to look for the dog.

NOW FOR OUR COMEDY MOMENT OF THE DAY: If you haven't seen this you really need to. Ode to Mom by Anita Renfroe

Nichelle Nichols is still one of the most beautiful and intelligent women of TREK… and that’s saying a lot. I’m glad that they got such a warm welcome to the set. I hope Uhura finally gets a first name, will it be the *for now* non-cannon, Nyota?

Nichols talked about what it was an honor for her and how she surprised the cast with her visit (and possibly gave a spoiler), while Zoe Saldana talked about how ‘humbled’ she was to meet Nichols and may also have dropped a spoiler.

In an audio interview with jonja.net (conducted at the recent Starfest in Devnver) [sic], Nichols talked about she was happy to be recast, and possibly gave a clue to the exact timing of the film. Here is a transcript [may contain spoilers]

Nichols also talked about a possible return to Heroes as well her time with NASA and more. Listen to the entire interview at jonja.net

For more of the interview with Zoe, goto NewsBlaze.com.

Karl Rove vs. Dan Abrams 

Karl Rove

April 13, 2008

 Mr. Dan Abrams

MSNBC

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, N.Y. 10112

 Dear Mr. Abrams:

 On April 7^th, you again devoted a substantial part of your show to the claim of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that I was behind his prosecution.  Your continued coverage of this issue raises questions about your journalistic standards and those of MSNBC and NBC.  During your broadcast, Mr. Siegelman referred to Ms. Dana Jill Simpson as a “respected Republican political operative,” a reference it seems you accept because of the frequent attention you give her in your broadcasts.

 

Have you, during your coverage of Ms. Simpson, ever actually looked into her claims?  For example, have you ever asked her what campaigns she worked as “an operative” with me?

And if so, did you check out what she said by calling the candidates who were my clients or their campaign managers to ask if she was involved in those campaigns? Did you review campaign expenditure reports to see if her name appeared as a paid operative?  Or did you check with the DeKalb County Republican chairman or activists (such as the Moore campaign chairman, an effort she told the Judiciary Committee she was active in) to see if she really was a “respected Republican political operative?”   

Did you inquire when it was that I first asked her to undertake unnamed campaign tasks, as she alleged happened in the years before 2001?  And did you try to ascertain whether she was telling the truth about those requests?

 

Did you inquire when and where her supposed 2001 meeting with me took place at which she was asked to follow Siegelman and photograph him?  If so, did you make any effort to see if she could document her claim?

 

And if you were personally convinced by her answers that there was a good likelihood of such a meeting, did you try to figure out if there was any way that I was likely to have been available for such a meeting?   Or is it merely enough for her to assert for you to repeat?

 

Didn’t it strike you as foolish for me to ask someone with no particular experience to undertake a task requiring adroit surveillance and shadowing skills, a mission with such potential to blow up in everyone’s faces?

Then consider Ms. Simpson’s September 14, 2007 interview with the House Judiciary Committee that followed an earlier extensive interview by a Democratic committee lawyer.  Did it not bother you Ms. Simpson failed to mention the claim she made to CBS for their February 24, 2008 story that you then repeated on February 25^th?   After all, wouldn’t that be something Congressman John Conyer’s people would find interesting?

Don’t you find it odd that in 143 pages of testimony in September she said nothing about having worked with me in campaigns, nothing about being asked by me to undertake various tasks, nothing about my supposedly having asked her to follow Governor Siegelman and photograph him in a compromising position, nothing about having had meetings with me?   In fact, she never says she knows me or has met me.  Don’t you find that odd? Or were these considerations that got lost as you attempted to catch-up with CBS on the story?  Did the pressure of competition lead you to discard tough questions and sober reflection?

In fact, did you even read the transcript of Dana Jill Simpson’s testimony?  Did you try to ascertain if there was any evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the claims she made to the Judiciary Committee staff about Don Siegelman, Terry Butts, Judge Fuller and others were likely to be accurate?  Did it matter to you that following the release of her interview, as one observer has written, that “every single person whose name Simpson invokes as she spins her stories says that she is either lying or deluded?”  Are you aware that the list of people denying her claims includes Don Siegelman, whom she claims repeatedly urged her to provide her original affidavit?

Did you try to discover whether there was any evidence she did in fact shadow Don Siegelman?  Did you ask for travel records, itineraries, or expense reports that showed Ms. Simpson’s travel from Northeastern Alabama matched up with the Governor’s schedule?

Did you ever consider that the Governor’s security detail might have taken note of an ample-sized, redheaded woman who kept showing up at his events with a camera?  Did you talk with the Alabama Department of Public Safety? 

 

 

In fact, did you ever ask her how she attempted to find him in a compromising position?  Was it her practice to follow him from his events and shadow him late at night when he was on the road?  Peek through hotel windows?  Hang out down the hallway from his hotel room?  Were you satisfied she actually did what she was supposedly asked to do? 

 In your February 25^th broadcast, she said she had phone records of calls to “Virginia and Washington” that corroborate her charges.  Have you made an effort to review those records and ascertain what they point to?  Since I lived and worked in Washington, D.C. in 2001, I can’t imagine what her cryptic reference to Virginia could mean.  The Bush/Cheney transition office (where I was rarely, working instead in Austin) was in Virginia until late 2000, before the transition was moved to a government building near the White House before year’s end.  But what number and who was she calling in Virginia (presumably) later in 2001 when she was being asked to shadow Siegelman?  And what were those Washington numbers?  Did you ask her? Or was it good enough for you that she said had them so you were content to let the matter drop?

 In fact, what did you do to ascertain if anything she told you and that you repeated or relied upon was accurate?  Or is it good enough for you to simply repeat her charges without examining them personally to satisfy yourself that she is – and has done – what she says she did?

 Does it bother you that your coverage asserts, as Governor Siegelman summarized it in his April 7^th appearance on your program, that he is the victim of a vast conspiracy involving two U.S. Attorneys, the Alabama Attorney General, unnamed career officials in the Public Integrity Unit at the U.S. Justice Department, unnamed higher-ups in the Justice Department and, oh yes, Karl Rove and that there is not a single piece of paper, not a single email, not a single conversation, not a single disgruntled career employee who’s came forward, not one credible witness to the workings of the conspiracy?

And do you really believe such a scheme could be operated so efficiently and effectively that it would manipulate the career prosecutor who brought the case so that he did not understand he was doing the bidding of this vast conspiracy?   And that the FBI agents who conducted the investigation could similarly be so easily and subtly subverted?

In fact, it seems you believe that the absence of any concrete evidence is itself evidence of the conspiracy.  If you don’t have any proof Karl Rove did it, that absence is proof enough.  I am that good.

And is it your habit not to challenge a guest, as long as he is following your chosen theme for the night?  For example, let’s take your December 13, 2007 broadcast.   

Scott Horton said “We don’t have all the links in place but we do know that certainly beginning from 2002, Karl Rove out of the White House was deeply involved in the election of Rob [sic] Riley, structuring it, raising money for it, putting together a strategy for it.  A part of that strategy involved the criminal justice system nailing charges, landing charging [sic] on Siegelman on some sort.  As we know that it involved at some point, consultation with the Justice Department and also two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama…”

Just how does Mr. Horton know all this “certainly”?  Did you ask him what proof he had that I was deeply involved in Congressman Riley’s gubernatorial bid?  What evidence does he have that I structured it, raised money for it, put together a strategy for it?  What evidence does he have that “my” strategy included indicting Siegelman?  With whom and when did I consult with the Justice Department about this “strategy?”  When did I consult with the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about it?  He said, “we do know that certainly” this all happened.  If you consider yourself a journalist or even a lawyer, wouldn’t this be the point where you should have asked Mr. Horton, how do you know that, what evidence do you have? 

What about you?  Did you review campaign spending and news report to identify the Riley campaign consultants or ad team and call them to see if I played a role?  Did you do some sleuthing of your own, phoning Republicans in Alabama who might have been in a position to know? Did you call any major donors to Congressman Riley’s gubernatorial bid and ask if they were contacted by me and encouraged to give money? Did you talk with your colleagues in NBC covering the White House and ask them how credible the argument might be that I was serving as the political consultant and campaign manager of a candidate for Governor of Alabama in 2002 while also serving as Senior Advisor to the President of the United States?  Or because Mr. Horton’s assertions fit your story line for the night, did you think he didn’t need to prove anything he claimed and you didn’t need to do any work?

As a matter of fact, I had other things to occupy my time in the White House in 2002 rather than “structuring” a campaign for an Alabama gubernatorial candidate, calling people to raise money for his race, and going through the arduous task of “putting together a strategy.”  And I certainly didn’t meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman.  My involvement in the campaign was to approve a request that the President appear at a Riley campaign fundraising event, one of several score fundraising events the President did that election cycle.

It boils down to this: as a journalist, do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your guests, seek out evidence and come to a professional judgment as to the real facts?  Or do you feel if a charge is breathtaking enough, thoroughly checking it out isn’t a necessity?

I know you might be concerned that asking these questions could restrict your ability to make sensational charges on the air, but don’t you think you have a responsibility to provide even a shred of supporting evidence before sullying the journalistic reputations of MSNBC and NBC?

People used to believe journalists were searching for the truth.  But your cable show increasingly seems to be focused on wishful thinking, hoping something is one way and diminishing the search for facts and evidence in favor of repeating your fondest desires.  For example, while you do ask Siegelman what evidence he had to back up his charges, you did not press him when he said "We don't have the knife with Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it, but we've got the glove, and the glove fits."   

The difficulty with your approach is you reduced yourself to the guy in the bar who repeats what the fellow next to him says – “The glove fits! The glove fits!” - only louder, because it suits your pre-selected story line ("Bush Justice") and you don’t want the facts to get in the way of a good fable.  You have relinquished the central responsibility of an investigative reporter, namely to press everyone in order to get to the facts.  You didn’t subject the statements of others to skeptical and independent review.  You have chosen instead to simply repeat something someone else says because it agrees with the theme line your producers slapped on your segment, created the nifty graphic for and promoted in the ads before your appearances.

Sincerely,

Karl Rove

Note:  Old galleries (pre-November 2007) at Shareapic are no longer working.  Details at http://www.shareapic.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5721&start=0.

Gallery No.: 211108

With only the highest of expectations going into my first viewing of Lost, I'm not too surprised that I wasn't blown out of my shoes for this enormously hyped up television show.  But before you burn me at the stake, I do admit it is a good show... I just wasn't entirely impressed by its first season.
 
For anyone who doesn't know, the plot is this:  Oceanic Airlines Flight #815 (from Australia to Los Angeles) crashes on a secluded island and the 40+ survivors do anything in their power to stay alive, adapt, and try to get rescued.  To make a show like this work you need a large number of interesting and diverse characters, and Lost definitely has that.  The strongest of the pack would be the so-called leader and doctor, Jack (Matthew Fox).  In addition to him there are Locke (the survivalist/warrior), Sayid (former soldier of the Iraqi Republic), Sawyer (a con-artist who wants everyone to hate him), and Kate (the convict who's been on the run). 
 
There are a lot of other characters including the Korean couple (Sun and Jin), the heroin addict (Charlie), pregnant woman (Claire), father and son (Michael and Walt), spoiled brat and her stepbrother (Shannon and Boone), and the fat, lovable Hurley.  And yes, there are a lot more survivors from the plane, but these are the ones you see, though I wished they would've cut the group down even more. 
 
Every episode spans about two days on the island and shows a number of flashbacks for one certain character as we learn about their past.  It's an interesting formula that seems to work very effectively, but not without a few setbacks.  For one, having so many flashback scenes takes away from the more interesting aspect of the show, which is how the group is surviving on the island.  To me, the Lord of the Flies theme of choosing sides and adapting to the new environment is a lot more interesting than learning about why Jack and his father didn't like each other. 

But nonetheless, the series is very addicting.  It's not the addiction you're left with when there's an episode with a jaw-dropping cliffhanger.  No, out of Lost's entire first season there was only one cliffhanger that ended an episode (I'm sure you know which episode I'm talking about).  Instead, you yearn to know more about each character because they're so interesting (and completely fucked up in their own ways).  So although I was never drooling with anticipation to see what happened next, there was just no reason to stop. 
 
Lost runs a lot of risks with the genre it falls into.  Lord of the Flies and the reality-TV show Survivor are embedded into our minds whether we like it or not.  So it's only normal to expect something similar from Lost.  But Lost doesn't stick only with what is real and what would probably happen if there was a plane crash with survivors.  We instantly find out that this is no normal island.  Whether this turned people who were looking for a refreshing and "real" series away; or whether it drew attention to those supernatural and sci-fi fans... it definitely tested our patience.  I applaud Lost's ambition to juggle the genres of reality and sci-fi/fantasy and make it totally accessible. 

It seemed to me that the first season was to fully establish the main characters and display how their actions and intentions on the island echo their past.  Once the foundation was settled, that's when the season truly picked up its pace.  The story arc for the first season was so complicated and bizarre, we were as confused as the characters on the show were... which would be a good thing if the highly anticipated season finale wasn't a complete bust.  There were several crucial questions begging to be answered, but the finale didn't answer any of them.  Instead, it created even more questions, frustrating the viewers to their boiling point.  There's just something about TV-series and poor conclusions that makes me cringe.  I guess it's a much harder task than concluding a movie because on top of completing a season, it has to serve as the starting point for the next season.  But that should be similar to a plot point in a film, just less subtle.  Eh, anyway...

The first season of Lost was a good beginning to what could be a very lengthy and successful show.  Although there's no true urgency to continue the second season right away, I do plan on watching it soon... just not very soon.

“They don’t need to act; they need to be.”
-John Malkovich as F.W. Murnau in Shadow of the Vampire

Unfortunately, the film world has yet to invent a clever, new term to describe what the great Murnau envisioned. Nothing in our vocabulary, in a word, can yet encapsulate what is easily one of the most fascinating and admirable contemporary acting styles. Perhaps it is because the films that use it do not win any great, significant awards. Or, perhaps it is because it is not really acting at all.

What I am referring to can be seen, most famously, in The Blair Witch Project. This grown-up version of Method Acting, along with an unsteady, seemingly amateurish cinematography technique, (known to cause motion sickness) creates the illusion of a documentary. Neither the hyper-realistic acting nor the home movie-style cinematography is new to Hollywood (see the Bogie/Bacall-noir Dark Passage for fantastic point-of-view cinematography). However, their use together has created an entirely new method of filmmaking, most commonly used as a vehicle for horror movies. With influence from the YouTube generation, Hollywood has recently released two notable examples of this filmmaking style: J.J. Abram’s Cloverfield and George A. Romero’s Diary of the Dead. The two films have been compared a lot lately. But, in order to better prepare ourselves for this emerging sub-genre, we must also see how they differ from the nearly ten year-old Blair Witch, or even Romero’s debut classic Night of the Living Dead.

Night of the Living Dead: We begin with two incredibly different films, made during incredibly different times in film history, which suffer from incredibly similar problems. In fact, Romero attempted to justify the faux-documentary format of his recent film by suggesting the socially and politically conscious nature of all his work. "All these films have been motivated by observations of what is happening out there in the world," he explains. The assumption that Diary is therefore meant to represent a more realistic, modern, YouTube version of Night of the Living Dead (our heroes do actually log on to MySpace at one point) leads one to question why the acting seems so very unnatural. Judith O’Dea (Barbra in Night) showed the world just how terrible acting can get, but our new lead female, Michelle Morgan, (Debra) is right there with her. With Romero’s earlier film, the relatively poor acting was excusable (although I did find Duane Jones to be quite good) since it was a low-budget directorial debut not intended to suggest realism. But, Romero’s been at this game for quite a while now and, frankly, I had higher expectations for this film.

One thing I can say for Diary is that, just like its 1968 predecessor, it dives right into the action within the first five minutes. We begin with supposedly unaired news footage depicting murder victims on ambulance gurneys returning to life. It seems like a good place to start off, yet it is interrupted by something the audience surely has not expected: narration. Try imagining a narrator in Blair Witch: “…and so there they were…three campers…helpless victims of their own curiosity…but we all know what curiosity did to the cat, don’t we!!!” It unquestionably divorces the viewer from the plot. That being said, I cannot possibly imagine a worse place for this to happen. Is the entire concept behind the whole faux-documentary thing not to really put you in the story, in the action, and on the edge of your seat? This narration (which just so happens to be the voice of the aforementioned Debra) is recurrent throughout the film and is often mixed with pointless slow-motion flashbacks. So, we have counterproductive narration now mixed with senseless editing. Honestly, if you can see through these outstanding annoyances, you do have the potential for a pretty decent movie.

While I am sure no great plot summary is required, the Night and Diary stories are quite the same. As opposed to Night’s zombie survival plan of boarding up in an old house with a shotgun, the party crew of Diary jumps in a Winnebago and heads for Scranton, PA (the home of both Debra and genius NBC sitcom The Office). As a whole, Night’s plot is the quintessential zombie story. The idea is not escape, so much as defense. Ben, Barbra, Mr. Cooper and co. may have their differences of opinion, yet—until the very end—they are united in their desire to (a.) figure out what in the world is going on and (b.) isolate themselves from “it” until some help (or a better idea) arrives. Diary, however, operates more like a slasher film. Whatever “it” is, it is trying to kill them and will succeed unless they reach mom and dad’s house in Scranton. Then, in the truest slasher tradition, the idiot college kids begin to die off, one by one. Sadly, this may be the more realistic story after all. I am sure that you, the reader, would love to imagine that, if Armageddon were to strike, you would have the house fortified, a double-barrel shotgun in your hands, a shortwave radio, two cases of bottled water, and 65 rolls of duck tape. However, it is just as easy to believe there are those of us who would say, “I don’t know what’s goin’ on, but I’m gettin’ the heck out of here!!”

The Blair Witch Project: It is really quite hard for me to compare these two films at all since I have such enormous respect for Blair Witch (which means this part will be short). It is easily one of the most underrated films of the last 20 years. In my review of El Orfanato (The Orphanage), I said Blair was, at one time, the most terrifying film I had ever seen. Diary is simply not frightening at all, nor does it seem like it is even trying to be. Perhaps you might jump once in awhile, but it doesn’t send that chill down your spine the way Blair Witch can. To this day, I cannot even bring myself to purchase a copy of it on DVD (although I tell people it is because I am holding out for the Blu-ray).

The true essence of horror in both Night and Blair is the ambiguity. No real explanation is given in the former (the word “zombie” is never once uttered), nor is the protagonist given any form or definition whatsoever in the latter. Moreover, neither of the two gives the impression that this horror will ever come to an end, or die. The zombies featured in Diary of the Dead (and they are, undoubtedly, “zombies”) are far too transparent. In one scene, the audience is allowed to watch a girl in a wheelchair slowly die and then gradually come back to life, thus eliminating any substantial degree of ambiguity. The 1968 Romero undead human being and the Blair Witch ghost of the forest are the perfect examples of the strange, yet somehow familiar creatures that suggest the uncanny. This device is a textbook requirement for a successful horror story and Diary of the Dead fails to create any suggestion of it. The zombies are just that: tired, hungry, depraved zombies. Nothing new.

Cloverfield: To review, Romero’s newest film fails to (a.) bring the audience into the action, (b.) impress them with hyper-realistic acting to match the suggested filmmaking style, (c.) suggest a totally practical plan of action adopted by the protagonists or (d.) introduce the most essential element required of the genre that Romero, himself, helped revolutionize. In comparison, Cloverfield can claim to accomplish only the first, and perhaps second or fourth, of these goals. Our characters are the same group of college idiots, only with slightly better actors. Their plan to elude this modern Godzilla includes a whole host of ridiculous antics, including the rescue of an ex-girlfriend trapped on the top floor of a slowly collapsing apartment building (who also happens to have a iron bar driven clear through her chest). Nevertheless, it succeeds in ways I imagine J.J. Abrams did not even intend.

To begin with, the sales of motion sickness pills reportedly went up in the days after Cloverfield’s wide release. That is exactly what I mean when I speak about realistic camera work. The average person cannot hold a camera still to catch his or her son or daughter take their first baby steps, much less keep the horizon line somewhat steady during the apocalypse. To match this incredibly realistic camera work, the film’s editing perfectly mimics your average, everyday, 90-minute videocassette. Diary will feature these absurd moments where our protagonist will say “OK, I’m gonna turn the camera off now…” before cutting to the next scene. Cloverfield will interrupt the characters right in the middle of a sentence before averting to a scene that takes place maybe several hours ahead in the story’s timeline. In fact, the only information on the entire film that does not seem to be a real, first-hand document is the inter-title at the beginning stating something along the lines of “Property of United States Governmet…tape found in the area formerly known as Central Park.” Everything else is just exactly what they found right on the tape. It even cuts back, occasionally, to older footage on the tape that had been recorded over. These snippets of older footage actually interact with what is being taped the new footage/our main story (I promise not to reveal any more than that). There is no question as to whether Diary or Cloverfield boasts the more realistic presentation.

One part of Diary that some viewers may find interesting is the frequent references it makes to the 1932 Karloff version of The Mummy. The character holding the camera most of the time is an amateur filmmaker named Jason who, at the beginning of the film, is shooting a cheap mummy movie. We see a woman in a white dress being pursued through the forest by this mummy until Jason yells, “cut.” This is the point where they hear the radio broadcast concerning the dead returning to life. The mummy goes his own, separate way, but returns later in the film. The Winnebago gang catch up to the mummy character at his parent’s mansion, getting drunk. Much of the scenes that follow—for whatever reason or another—are seen through the security cameras placed throughout the mansion. These grainy, black and white shots of the dimly lit mummy strolling throughout the house drunk (still in his mummy costume, of course) are a rather cute touch by Romero.

The reason these references are even mentioned is that many critics have spoken about the traditional Hollywood elements of Cloverfield. Through and through, the filmmaking style and presentation are of the modern, faux-documentary, hyper-realistic theme. However, subtle elements of the plot do remind one more of a traditional Godzilla or King Kong screenplay. For example, the aforementioned guy who insists on going back to find his girlfriend trapped in her apartment. There is obviously nothing realistic about that decision, but it is what men in old Hollywood films are expected to do. Plus, the Cloverfield monster itself is…well, it is quite hard to describe. For one thing, it is quite a loud and revolting creature. But the overall design of the creature, not to mention the whole concept behind it, is highly imaginative and surreal. Cloverfield, the film and the monster itself, is not the type of creature we find in theaters anymore.

The problem with calling a film like Cloverfield or Diary of the Dead “hyper-realistic” in the first place is that the whole premise is completely preposterous. The Blair Witch Project and Night of the Living Dead, on the other hand, rely on the viewer’s own imagination. Perhaps, there is no ghost chasing them through the forest at all. Perhaps, they are all just completely nuts. Perhaps, our supposed zombies are, as Phillip from Shaun of the Dead calls them, “just a bunch of drunk nuts.” We are not given any concrete evidence to support or deny any theory, which actually seems to make these older films more realistic. The Cloverfield monster, like the Diary zombies, is obviously a very real threat to the characters in the film. Yet, in making their existence and state-of-being so concrete, we are asking the viewer to just go along with something that they believe to be impossible, unlikely, or just plain ridiculous. Cloverfield and Diary are therefore flawed due to their presentation of hyper-unrealistic characters and events through a hyper-realistic filmmaking style. That is not to suggest that they are not entertaining movies. Yet Blair Witch, of the three faux-documentary attempts, is the only one that theoretically deserves the classification of “hyper-realistic.”

Unfortunately, Blair Witch and Cloverfield have both spawned sequels (J.J. Abrams is actually calling it a prequel) that will inevitably taint the memory of the original. It would seem right and just to ask Romero to quit while he still has a bit of credibility. Yet, for fear of who may take up the reins when he does step down, (because there will ALWAYS be zombie movies) most critics try to give him a passing grade and just hope he has it in him for one more great film (which is the same attitude they give George Lucas). As far as the whole faux-documentary thing goes, the most positive thing one can say is that these seemingly amateurish films provide massive inspiration for poor, amateur filmmakers. Anyone with two good friends, a cheap video camcorder, about $1K, and a ton of creativity could have made The Blair Witch Project. Furthermore, it is good to see that films like these are so popular these days. Both Blair Witch and Cloverfield made a ton of money in theaters and are guaranteed cult classics. Hopefully, this innovative new style of filmmaking will not fade away like so many other great trends that never quite caught on.

A PiRate Preview of The Regional Final Games-March 29, 2008

Eight teams are left, and only Davidson, a team with a 25-game winning streak can be considered a surprise.  Xavier and Louisville may not have been expected to get this far, but both the Musketeers and Cardinals are no big surprises.

All four number one seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight.  Can all four make it to the Final Four for the first time since the current 64/65-team format has been in effect?  It's possible, but it's also possible that two of the four top-seeded teams could lose.

Of the eight Sweet 16 round games, seven of them were dull games.  Only the Xavier-West Virginia game was worth watching from start to finish.  Let's hope the Regional Final games are a little more exciting.

In the statistics shown below, the records are up to date, but the stats do not include the Regional Semifinal games.  Those will be included in next week's Final Four Previews.

Note:  In the statistics below, you will see a column marked other.  "B" means the player is an exceptional shot blocker.  "S" means the player is exceptional at stealing the ball.  "A" means the player is an excellent passer for assists.  "F" means the player is foul-prone.

West Regional-Phoenix

Saturday, March 29, 2008

6:40 PM EDT

#3 Xavier vs. #1 UCLA