Not All Girls Bring You Lasagna...

My wife and I never signed prenuptials before marrying. We've been happily married for almost 7 years. Thankfully she tolerates my geeky obsessions and has even joined me in the dark side for a few of them. Some marriages, however, can be strained by geeky obsessions, like any other obsession such as sports or video games. The result of a strained marriage can mean a messy divorce where the geeky life-long collection of toys or comics comes to an end. In these cases prenups would have been ideal.

From SF website.

An article from the website Science Fiction recently posted  a story about Tony Alleyne, of England, who lost his customized flat to his ex-wife. This was no ordinary flat but one that was personally customized into a replica of the star ship Voyager! Tony had, with incredible patience and skill, transformed his flat into a real-life Trekie dream, minus the warp drive! The verdict from his long divorce showed that it was his wife that actually owned the flat he had transformed into a piece of Star Trek heaven. So with this decision, Tony was forced into destroying all his customized Trekie embellishments. In all, Tony had spent over $150,000 US and 16 years to create this 'man cave' fit for Captain Janeway herself, only to see it disappear the same way his marriage had!

From SF website.

Not to be outdone was an earlier story  (also posted on Science Fiction) where a man was kicked out of the house by his ex-girlfriend. She piled and bagged up his life's collection of Star Wars collectibles and threw them out into the neighbouring alleyway. Blessed with clear skies and two working arms, the man hurried to save his collection. While I feel for this guy in the way of having a life's collection being put in jeopardy, I feel more strongly that if he had put as much gusto into his relationship that he now (presumably) would not be back to living in his parent's basement. I would say the same argument goes for Mr. Alleyne but to be fair the story of these two men's actual relationships is left unsaid, except (and it is telling) that the stories never mentioned if these men were in new relationships.

The moral of these two stories is that if you are entering a serious relationship and have a geeky passion, you must then make a decision! Before entering a serious relationship, decide what is more important: your geeky obsession or your relationship with your significant other. If it is your obsession that wins out, then make sure you have prenups in hand because chances are your serious, real-life relationship will falter. A good relationship is built on love, respect and to devoting time to being with one another. In this case, the second option is to continue your geeky obsessions with a modest amount of restraint and understanding that it is not the most important component to your life. 

Personally, I love my geeky obsessions such as Lego, comic books, and science-fiction movies. However, it is the relationship with my wife that means more. It is for this reason that my wife has shown interest in my hobbies, as I have shown interest in her's. A solid relationship is built on understanding what is truly important, which I suppose is something that neither of the men in the  two stories above understood before they entered serious relationships. 

So to all the geeks in relationships out there, remember that it's easier to replace a collectible than it is a relationship! Don't take it fore-granted!

The wise Silent Bob (Clerks) sums it up best.

Lego is for Everyone: Awseom Time-Lapse Vid of Building Millennium Falcon

Lego is for everyone! On BuzzFeed I came across a cool time-lapse video of someone building the 9-14, 1254 piece Lego Millennium Falcon set! The host says it took her 4 hours to complete and I am beset with envy! Thinking of my own Lego sets, I don't think I own anything in the 1,000 piece mark. Cool video to watch.

More Lord of the Rings Lego news!

The awesomeness that will be "Lord of the Rings LEGO" continues! Recently, images of the principle mini-figures and some set names were released. The set names, along with the mini-figures included, were leaked and hence unofficial. The photos for the mini-figures, however, were officially released by LEGO. 

I am ecstatic about these new sets but am still confused why they wouldn't start with sets that would tie into the Hobbit movie. I think they should definitely produce sets for the trilogy but it would make more sense to begin with the first book to keep the sets in a more chronological order. It also stands to reason that MGM Studios and Peter Jackson would've preferred a toy licence with Lego that had them first make Hobbit sets. 

List of set names:
- "Gandalf Arrives" – Minifigures: Gandalf, Frodo
- "Shelob Attacks" – Minifigures: Samwise, Frodo, Gollum
- "Uruk-hai Army" – Minifigures: x4 Uruk-hai with a siege crossbow, x1 Rohirrim Soldier, x1 Rider Of Rohan with his horse
- "Attack On Weathertop"- Minifigures: Samwise, Frodo, Aragon, x2 Nazgul
- "Mines Of Moria" – Minifigures: Frogo, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir, x2 Goblins, x2 Skeletons, Cave Troll
- "The Battle Of Helms Deep" – Minifigures: Aragon, Gimli, Legolas, Theoden, x5 Uruk-hai

Lepors & Pirates

A new claymation movie entitled Pirates! Band of Misfits is set to be released on April 27th, 2012. The movie is produced by Aardman Animation, the same company that brought us British claymation gems like Wallace and Gromit and Chicken Run. Recently, the movie has come under fire from Leprosy Advocacy groups because of a scene where the Pirate captain boards a boat that turns out to be filled with lepers. According to the angered advocacy groups, a particular comedic scene that involved a leper loosing his arm only helps to further the stigma of the disease (movie trailer below).

Leprosy (also known as Hansen's disease) is a disease that continues to ravage people across the globe. Leprosy is curable with the treatment of several drugs over a period of months to years, with vital importance being placed on early diagnosis. Leprosy is uncommon in wealthy nations but is common in poorer nations such as India and across Africa.

I did not agree with the outright removal of this scene by leprosy groups, but instead felt that this was an instance of both PC gone a muck and a huge missed opportunity by leprosy groups, as contradictory as it may sound. What I mean by this is that political correctness in this case had the result of stripping the subject entirely away from the a source that potentially could have brought greater exposure to the disease -Pirates: Band of Misfits. A joke, that by appearance in the trailer suggested it had made light of the issue but did not seem to be maleficent in nature towards those afflicted with the disease.  The missed opportunity here was huge. Instead of stripping the joke away, leprosy advocacy groups could instead have encouraged Aardman Animation to include a short trailer that educated the audience about the disease. This trailer could have been shown right before the movie and mentions the joke within the trailer, instructing the audience how leprosy is actually a current disease where funding is greatly needed for medicine and research. The result of this missed opportunity would be to educate millions of people across the world about the current issues involved with leprosy and perhaps have an added benefit of gaining new benefactors through those watching the film.

The common saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity" does not apply here. All that has happened here is bad publicity for leprosy advocacy groups because of their missed opportunity to promote their cause and that they chose a fight with a children's animated movie. What furthers the situation is that a particular individual from The Leprosy Mission has made it her goal to connect with anyone who disagrees with the removal of this scene. This lawyer, a miss Sian Arulanatham, is the Head of Programs for the mission and a self-proclaimed Human Rights Defender according to her Twitter account. Sian sends personal insults and accusations to people who criticize this move by leprosy groups on Twitter. Below is the Twitter exchange between myslef and miss Arulanatham.

The part that annoyed me the most about miss Arulanatham's Tweets was that she turned my criticism of a situation into a personal insult and assumed a lot about someone she had never met. In her first Tweet she wrote "clearly you have not experienced such suffering". Such attacks on people via the social network does no one any good and in fact it ultimately hurts the institution /beliefs you represent, in this case leprosy advocacy groups. In fact, this runs counter to what the leprosy advocacy groups were saying in the first place: that Pirates had made the joke a personal matter against those afflicted with leprosy, or in another words a joke is not funny when it comes at the expense of someone. Furthermore, her Tweet would suggest that only those that have been affect by 'suffering' can understand leprosy. Does this mean that my opinions mean less because I have not 'suffered' enough according to her vague criteria.

 

I truly hope that the Leprosy Mission rethinks who they have representing them through social media networks and also rethinks how they want to go about creating social awareness for their cause. Via attacking children's movies and forming personal attacks on people through social media venues, groups such as the Leprosy Mission will never achieve the positive exposure that I believe they are ultimately seeking. 

 

I believe that issues such as leprosy deserve attention and illustrate a true tragedy in this world since it is a problem that can be solved. We have the medication but for various reasons it is not being dealt to those suffering with the problems. What is disheartening is that the groups that supposedly stand to help and be the voice for those ailing with leprosy are instead more concerned with how a children's movie is going to depict the disease and how a few people on Twitter disagreed with their stance against the said movie.

My Problems with the 2012 Oscar Nominations

Oscar Nominations were listed today and right away I found myself angry! Below are my problems with the list and my opinion on who will win according to their list. The full list of 2012 Oscar Nominations can be found here.

1. Why were there only 9 films chosen for Best Picture? 50/50, Ides of March, Crazy Stupid Love, Young Adult, and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are all real contenders for the spot of 10th film nod. Artist will win, but Hugo deserves to win.

2. Best Actor category filled with award favorites, not necessarily best actors. Leonardo Dicaprio (J. Edgar) and Joseph Gordan Levitt (50/50) should have been included over Brad Pitt. Clooney, Pitt, and Oldman all delivered adequate performances (Oldman perhaps the best), but Dujardin (The Artist) will win. Levitt should have been nominated and won.

3. Best Actress category is filled with incredible performances. There were handfuls of strong leading ladies this year and while some were left out, they were not substituted by weaker actresses unlike the best male actor category -however, I would have liked to have seen Theron (Young Adult) nominated somehow. Meryl Streep will win, and probably should win.

4. Supporting Actor category has two inclusions that take away from more deserving actors. Jonah Hill (Moneyball), in particular, delivered a strong but not award winning performance. Sacha Baron Cohen (Hugo), however, did. Christopher Plummer will win, but Cohen should win.

5. I have no issues with the Best Supporting Actress category. Lots of great female actors this year and it is difficult to choose who was best. I think Octavia Spencer (The Help) will win, but I have to admit to not seeing the Artist yet.

6. Honestly, this was not a terribly strong year for animated movies. From the Oscar list I have only seen two of the nominations, Rango and Kung Fu Panda 2, which neither were all that special. What I do find notable is that Cars 2 was not nominated. This makes it the first time Pixar has not been nominated, and from what I hear from reviewers, they didn't deserve a nomination anyways.

7. In the Best Director category we see David Fincher again being snubbed. I think Fincher and Christopher Nolan need to start up their own self-help I got snubbed by the Oscars again club! Scorsese for Hugo is a shoe-in for winning the award, but Hazanavicius and Payne may give him a run for his money. Overall, a lot of strong contenders.

8. Best Original Score overlooked Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross' amazing soundtrack for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. It's a real shame because Reznor and Ross produced an amazing soundtrack that added depth to each scene of the movie. Tintin is the obvious choice for me as to who should not have been included in the list, but I think the Artist will win as it is a silent movie and therefore the soundtrack becomes that much more obvious and important.

9. How can there be only TWO nominations for Best Original Song? How? Was there really only two good original songs this year? Bullshit! I'm sure Elton John had at least ONE decent song from Nomeo and Juliet! Plus, The Muppets was loaded with awesome songs! Muppets will easily win.

10. Best Adapted Screen Play makes a HUGE omission by not including Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Huge mistake! My money is on Hugo winning.

11. Best Original Screen Play also made HUGE omissions by not including Young Adult and 50/50! 
Either one of these movies could have won, but as it stands I would have to choose Midnight in Paris.

Star Wars: The Next Generation, Blue Ray Release

Recently read that TNG seasons, the TV show, will be begin being released on blue-ray early in 2012, beginning with a sampler collection on January 31st. I usually don't care about HD transfers because I have a crappy TV but this time I do because the difference is substantial! On the Random Tuesday website, photos from the DVD set are shown morphing into the same photo from the Blue Ray set. This morphing illustrates some outstanding differences between the two sets. Scenes with characters appear substantially sharper and the film grains from the original production are smoothed out and the lines now appear crisp. Changes in focus are also made, providing greater depth to each scene as well. The most noticeable differences are probably those that involve special effects. These scenes are principally those that feature the Enterprise, where the ship is depicted with considerable more detail. In one particular screen shot, the Enterprise is shown in front of a Klingon Bird of Prey. The Enterprise again is shown with a much higher level of clarity and detail and the Bird of Prey is replaced completely with a CGI version of the ship. 

Overall, the changes look fantastic and is what a lot of fanboys had originally hoped would happen with the Star Wars films -update the film quality and special effects but leave the damn story line alone! Again, here is the link to the website that features the comparison /morphing screen shots.

Popular Culture of the early 1900's -In Film!

Today's cinema produces images and ideas that are sometimes too risque for the general public. Grossly, however, these films are not banned but instead labeled with the nefarious NC17 or X ratings, which imply that no children are allowed to see the film. A recent example of this comes from the 2011 release, Shame, which offered a critically praised lead performance by Michael Fassbender. What produces strong labeling often includes overtly sexual imagery such as graphic sex scenes, while over-the-top violence achieves much less restrictive labels such an R rating. Outright banning of a film is an extremely rare occurrence in the Western cinema world, and the reasons often involve lawsuits that result only in a film being delayed.

The reasons why modern films are provided NC17 ratings or are banned are only slightly different from the rationales utilized in the turn of the 20th Century. My previous post discussed how much popular culture had changed in the past 100 years, but this post illustrates how in some areas popular culture has not changed at all. 

Thomas Edison is the creator of film and two of his initial films were banned for being too sexual in nature! In 1896 Edison released the incredibly short and silent film, The Kiss. This film featured a couple having a short but sweet smooch. In 1900, Edison revisited the subject with Kissing. The image of two lovers partaking in a kiss was too much for the average Western eye and so the films were moth balled. In one shade of light, this is starkly different from today where film scenes with a sexual nature are much more graphic than this before they are moth balled or slapped with strict labels. In another shade of light, popular culture of today and yesterday are no different for it is the subject matter of intimacy between two people that is the mire of our society while images of violence are allowed and praised. In 1900, the most popular film was The Great Train Robbery, which was also crafted by Edison. From the title alone, this film has a much more violent theme than The Kiss or Kissing. 

I am not suggesting that violent films should be moth balled in replace of more sexual films. I personally enjoy action films and movies such as Pulp Fiction, A Clockwork Orange, and Taxi Driver are among my all time favorite films. However, I think it is instructive to consider what subjects our society restricts and to think of why these subjects over others are viewed in certain ways. By doing so, we as a society can understand ourselves better and come to more holistic conclusions on what direction our society should take in the future.