Now, two warnings before we move on. First, I am going to write my LOST episode reviews before I read any other comments. I hope this will keep my opinions clear from any cross-contamination. If I do happen to read or hear something that influences my review, I will say so. Second, these reviews will contain spoilers. You have been warned.
----------SPOILERS----------
This Locke-centric episode was so much nicer (and stronger) than last week's Kate-centric episode. I was glad we finally learned what the numbers were for (or at least who came up with the numbers). And as usual with LOST, we now have more questions. Like, who was the kid with the bloody hands? Was this the same kid we saw later that told Smoke Monster Locke that he could not kill him? And is this kid (or at least the kid with the bloody hands) the reason Smoke Monster Locke is on the island? Was hurting this kid his crime and time on the island his punishment? And is this kid somehow related to Aaron or Claire?
All sorts of questions. But I expect that and to some degree, enjoy it. While this season has not been as strong as the first two seasons, I still think it has a solid chance of redeeming itself later on. Especially with how the sideways-flash time line plays into the events on the island. And seeing Hurley take care of Locke off island was great. The wheelchair bound Locke is so powerless at times it is amazing to see how well some actors do in portraying their off-island characters.
In the end, this was a good, solid episode. We see Richard afraid of Smoke Monster Locke. We see the reason behind the numbers. We see another secret cave. And we meet a new character that tells Smoke Monster Locke what he can't do.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Steven R. Boyett vs. S. M. Stirling
The elephant in the room: Did S. M. Stirling steal Steven R. Boyett's idea?
More specifically, did Stirling's Dies The Fire and the rest of his Emberverse series take too much from Boyett's Ariel (review here)?
First, a look at the facts:
- Ariel was first published by Ace in 1983
- Dies The Fire was first published by Roc in 2004
- The two authors are aware of each other as evidenced on the cover of Boyett's Elegy Beach where Stirling wrote "Haunting, elegiac, funny, and moving."
Second, a look at the rumors:
- Stirling stole the idea from Boyett and did not care
- Stirling is not a real person, it is actually Boyett writing under a pen name
- Stirling borrowed so heavily from Boyett's Ariel that he had to pay him a settlement
- Stirling borrowed so heavily from Boyett's Ariel that he agreed to help him promote Elegy Beach
As you can see, there is a huge gap between reality and fantasy. Now it is just a question of who can fill in the blanks.
In the meantime, I will digress to discuss my thoughts on the two books. I have long been a Stirling fan and really enjoyed how he took his original Emberverse series (the trilogy starting with Island In The Sea Of Time) and linked it to his second wave of books (starting with the aforementioned Dies The Fire). They showed both sides of the Change. Those people that were taken back in time with working guns and those left in our present without working guns. Both civilizations began to bend toward each other. Those in ancient times had a rapid growth in technology while those in current times had a relapse back to bows and swords. In fact, one could even argue that the ancient time line surpassed the current one with technology.
Both sets of books also showed a wonderful mix of characters. From a black, lesbian, Coast Guard officer that became the leader of the good guys to the free-wheeling, singing, Wiccan who led another group of good guys. Regardless of which characters you liked (or hated), they were fully formed, fleshed out, and felt so real. Many times I caught myself thinking of people I know (or have known) as these characters.
Moving over to Ariel, Boyett does not quite write with as much detail as Stirling. In fact, we barely learn anything at all about the Change, other than it happened, it was bad, and magical creatures came out of it. While the magical creatures certainly adds some spunk to the plot, the characters are not as fleshed out as Stirling's.
But while Boyett sacrifices some of the detail, there is a gain in speed and ease of reading. For those fantasy fans out there, it is like the difference between Joe Abercrombie and George R. R. Martin. Both write in the same genre. One writes fast-paced books while the other is very epic. Boyett and Stirling are the same way. Each author has weaknesses and strengths, but neither writes a heap of garbage. After reading Boyett's Afterword and learning more about him, I am impressed even more with his ability to churn out such a good book.
So who wins? Steve Stirling. Why? Simply because he has written more books for me to enjoy. Aside from that, I would say there's a bit of a three-way tie between Boyett, Stirling, and Taylor Anderson in the post-apocalyptic genre. Each author has pros and cons, but each writes a novel worth reading.
More specifically, did Stirling's Dies The Fire and the rest of his Emberverse series take too much from Boyett's Ariel (review here)?
First, a look at the facts:
- Ariel was first published by Ace in 1983
- Dies The Fire was first published by Roc in 2004
- The two authors are aware of each other as evidenced on the cover of Boyett's Elegy Beach where Stirling wrote "Haunting, elegiac, funny, and moving."
Second, a look at the rumors:
- Stirling stole the idea from Boyett and did not care
- Stirling is not a real person, it is actually Boyett writing under a pen name
- Stirling borrowed so heavily from Boyett's Ariel that he had to pay him a settlement
- Stirling borrowed so heavily from Boyett's Ariel that he agreed to help him promote Elegy Beach
As you can see, there is a huge gap between reality and fantasy. Now it is just a question of who can fill in the blanks.
In the meantime, I will digress to discuss my thoughts on the two books. I have long been a Stirling fan and really enjoyed how he took his original Emberverse series (the trilogy starting with Island In The Sea Of Time) and linked it to his second wave of books (starting with the aforementioned Dies The Fire). They showed both sides of the Change. Those people that were taken back in time with working guns and those left in our present without working guns. Both civilizations began to bend toward each other. Those in ancient times had a rapid growth in technology while those in current times had a relapse back to bows and swords. In fact, one could even argue that the ancient time line surpassed the current one with technology.
Both sets of books also showed a wonderful mix of characters. From a black, lesbian, Coast Guard officer that became the leader of the good guys to the free-wheeling, singing, Wiccan who led another group of good guys. Regardless of which characters you liked (or hated), they were fully formed, fleshed out, and felt so real. Many times I caught myself thinking of people I know (or have known) as these characters.
Moving over to Ariel, Boyett does not quite write with as much detail as Stirling. In fact, we barely learn anything at all about the Change, other than it happened, it was bad, and magical creatures came out of it. While the magical creatures certainly adds some spunk to the plot, the characters are not as fleshed out as Stirling's.
But while Boyett sacrifices some of the detail, there is a gain in speed and ease of reading. For those fantasy fans out there, it is like the difference between Joe Abercrombie and George R. R. Martin. Both write in the same genre. One writes fast-paced books while the other is very epic. Boyett and Stirling are the same way. Each author has weaknesses and strengths, but neither writes a heap of garbage. After reading Boyett's Afterword and learning more about him, I am impressed even more with his ability to churn out such a good book.
So who wins? Steve Stirling. Why? Simply because he has written more books for me to enjoy. Aside from that, I would say there's a bit of a three-way tie between Boyett, Stirling, and Taylor Anderson in the post-apocalyptic genre. Each author has pros and cons, but each writes a novel worth reading.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Little Shop of Horrors at the Riverside Center Dinner Theater (review)
Title: Little Shop of Horrors
Book and Lyrics: Howard Ashman
Music: Alan Menken
Producer: Rollin E. Wehman
Director: Stephen R. Hayes
Genre: Musical
Cost: $64.50 per person (includes meal, does not include bar bill or tip)
The food at the Riverside is rarely bad so I was not surprised when once again I had a delicious meal. The only downside to the meal was the side dish of carrots and mixed potatoes. I am not a big fan of carrots and the potatoes were a mix of sweet potatoes, purple potatoes, pinkish ones, and regular ones. On the other hand, the seafood puff pastry is was awesome. I could easily rank it as one of the best meals I have had at the Riverside. Each bite was a wonderful mix of fish, scallops, and shrimp. And the pastry dough was soft, flaky, and sweet.
The salad was about the same as usual. I did opt for the lobster bisque appetizer and it was nice and creamy. For dessert I had the caramel apple pie. And like the rest of the desserts at the Riverside, it was very sweet and rich. The Skid Row (the show drink) was a nice treat for intermission. It tasted like a milkshake.
The show itself was a wacky mix of music, comedy, and horror. I have never seen the movie, but I can only guess how hilarious it was. Of particular note in the performance was the replacement of the original Ronnette, Sandra Hill, but the understudy. Each playbill had a flyer in it that said Mrs. Hill had passed away. There was no mention of her during the introductions, but a search of the local paper only had a short mention of her services.
There were some timing goofs in the performance where lines were flubbed a bit and the audio was off a bit for the man-eating plant, but it did not take that much away from the overall performance. In fact, one of the best characters was the plant itself. Having never seen the movie, I was a little shocked that it would talk (and sing) and danced around as much as it did. The stage hand in charge of running it did a great job.
The rest of the cast did well in there performances also, but the standout performer was Michael J. Perez who did a great job of playing the geeky Seymour. Another pleasant surprise was our server, Chris Hlusko. He has been around the Riverside long enough for us to recognize him in other productions but it was a neat surprise to hear him say he recognized us as frequent attendees.
In the end, I would have enjoyed a better choice of vegetables with dinner and a bit more perfection in the performance. But despite these small hindrances, I still enjoyed the performance and the meal. And if you have never been to the Riverside for a play, I highly recommend it. It is well worth the time and money spent.
Monday, February 15, 2010
The E-Book Price Dilemma
I am sure we have all heard about the Amazon and McMillan blowout. Authors, readers, fans, and trolls are all coming out with an opinion on one side or another. Many people have sworn to never buy from Amazon again. Others have sworn to never buy McMillan books again. Some have tried to reach a peaceful truce by supporting authors through other venues.
Where do I stand? Well, I own a Kindle DX. My wife owns one. We both shop from Amazon on occasion. And we both love to read books (regardless of who their publisher is).
And none of that is going to change.
You see, the one extreme is to boycott Amazon. Which to me is like trying to boycott Walmart. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Walmart, but both are powerful companies that can control their clients to some degree. After all, if Walmart can require their suppliers to use RFID tags, why can't Amazon require their supplier to use a set price?
The other extreme is, well, stupid. There is no way I am going to boycott an author just because of something his employer does. If the author makes an ass of himself, then I might boycott him, but just because his employer decides to use purple paint instead of green doesn't mean I'm going to stop reading his books.
And what about those trying to seek that peaceful middle-ground where we support authors and not Amazon? Malarkey. You see, I have a budget. In an effort for me to stay inside that budget, I buy books on my Kindle instead of in the store. So if an author asks me to pay more money to buy their book somewhere else, then it damn well better be autographed to me personally and have some sort of golden ticket inside for a prize.
What's the solution? I don't know that there is one. Amazon and McMillan are only doing what's best for them. Amazon wants to corner the market on e-books, so it wants to offer cheaper books. McMillan wants more money for itself (and their authors) so it wants to charge more. In the end, the reader and the author suffers. So I am still going to recommend people buy a Kindle DX. I am still going to shop at Amazon. And I am still going to buy those books that entertain me, regardless of who publishes them.
Will I pay more for e-books? A little more, maybe. But the book would need to have better formatting. When I pay $9.99 for an e-book, I expect it to be formatted quite well. A $14.99 e-book better be even better than that. But why can't we buy books that are in some sort of locked PDF format? Think about Audbile. You have to synch your Audible account with your Kindle in order to listen to your Audible files. No biggy. Took me two minutes tops. Why not something similar for e-books? You sync your device, and presto, you can open all those PDF files that are encrypted. This would prevent sharing the files across devices. And the formatting would be just as good as if not exactly the same as a printed version of the book.
Where do I stand? Well, I own a Kindle DX. My wife owns one. We both shop from Amazon on occasion. And we both love to read books (regardless of who their publisher is).
And none of that is going to change.
You see, the one extreme is to boycott Amazon. Which to me is like trying to boycott Walmart. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Walmart, but both are powerful companies that can control their clients to some degree. After all, if Walmart can require their suppliers to use RFID tags, why can't Amazon require their supplier to use a set price?
The other extreme is, well, stupid. There is no way I am going to boycott an author just because of something his employer does. If the author makes an ass of himself, then I might boycott him, but just because his employer decides to use purple paint instead of green doesn't mean I'm going to stop reading his books.
And what about those trying to seek that peaceful middle-ground where we support authors and not Amazon? Malarkey. You see, I have a budget. In an effort for me to stay inside that budget, I buy books on my Kindle instead of in the store. So if an author asks me to pay more money to buy their book somewhere else, then it damn well better be autographed to me personally and have some sort of golden ticket inside for a prize.
What's the solution? I don't know that there is one. Amazon and McMillan are only doing what's best for them. Amazon wants to corner the market on e-books, so it wants to offer cheaper books. McMillan wants more money for itself (and their authors) so it wants to charge more. In the end, the reader and the author suffers. So I am still going to recommend people buy a Kindle DX. I am still going to shop at Amazon. And I am still going to buy those books that entertain me, regardless of who publishes them.
Will I pay more for e-books? A little more, maybe. But the book would need to have better formatting. When I pay $9.99 for an e-book, I expect it to be formatted quite well. A $14.99 e-book better be even better than that. But why can't we buy books that are in some sort of locked PDF format? Think about Audbile. You have to synch your Audible account with your Kindle in order to listen to your Audible files. No biggy. Took me two minutes tops. Why not something similar for e-books? You sync your device, and presto, you can open all those PDF files that are encrypted. This would prevent sharing the files across devices. And the formatting would be just as good as if not exactly the same as a printed version of the book.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Gamer (movie review)
Title: Gamer (2009)
With a great heaving sigh of reluctance, I will now write this review. Why am I reluctant? Because I don't like writing bad reviews, even when something deserves it. And this movie truly deserves a bad review. I paid $5.99 for this movie on Pay-Per View and I immediately wanted my money back. Even with the coupon from DirecTV to take off $4.99, I still wanted my dollar back. Preferably with interest.
You see, the concept sounds neat. A society where people control others through a video game like SimCity. Those people being controlled get paid. Enter an action video game, and convicts get set free if they survive to the end of the game.
And then they had to totally ruin the movie with so much gratuitous blood and gore, I was queasy. And the acting? There was none. Although Michael C. Hall does play a pretty cool bad guy, I just kept seeing Dexter.
So save your money and let somebody else buy this for you. Then you can exchange it for something much better like Hackers.
With a great heaving sigh of reluctance, I will now write this review. Why am I reluctant? Because I don't like writing bad reviews, even when something deserves it. And this movie truly deserves a bad review. I paid $5.99 for this movie on Pay-Per View and I immediately wanted my money back. Even with the coupon from DirecTV to take off $4.99, I still wanted my dollar back. Preferably with interest.
You see, the concept sounds neat. A society where people control others through a video game like SimCity. Those people being controlled get paid. Enter an action video game, and convicts get set free if they survive to the end of the game.
And then they had to totally ruin the movie with so much gratuitous blood and gore, I was queasy. And the acting? There was none. Although Michael C. Hall does play a pretty cool bad guy, I just kept seeing Dexter.
So save your money and let somebody else buy this for you. Then you can exchange it for something much better like Hackers.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
LOST - What Kate Does (episode review)
Now, two warnings before we move on. First, I am going to write my LOST episode reviews before I read any other comments. I hope this will keep my opinions clear from any cross-contamination. If I do happen to read or hear something that influences my review, I will say so. Second, these reviews will contain spoilers. You have been warned.
----------SPOILERS----------
Where to begin on this one. Probably with disappointment. Even though I knew it was coming, even though I knew it would not be a strong episode, I was still disappointed in the lack of plot movement. The big reveals for me were Sawyer's plans to marry Juliet (which was nearly as sad as Charlie's death) and Claire's return (both on and off the island).
Kate has become some sort of rubber ball/fickle bitch. She keeps bouncing back and forth between Jack and Sawyer. Just stick to a man and be done with it.
Jin, I love Jin. Sure, I hated (and still do) his older persona, but I love that he's still looking for Sun and has developed into a much more intelligent character.
Jack is, well, still himself. Rash, unthinking, and almost as wishy-washy as Kate. Not really digging him right now.
Locke, although he was missing form this episode, is starting to grow on me. Mostly the off-island version with his words of wisdom, but also his Smoke Monster version that kicks ass and takes names.
Claire. Wow. She's back. Off-island she looks as sweet as ever. Even when Ethan Goodspeed is there to save her baby Aaron. On-island, she looks as crazy as Rousseau. And is apparently "infected" with whatever the illness is. Not sure what all that means, but I'm sure we'll find out. Which further proves a new theory I have. But more on that later.
In the end, I want to be surprised by all the changes (new characters, new locations, old characters coming back, etc.) but I'm a LOST fanatic now and honestly, not much really surprises me with the show anymore. Sure, there's still some shocks when I see people (like Ethan or Claire) but I expect that. I expect to walk away from the show scratching my head wondering if this whole thing has been a dream. So while this episode was disappointing at times, I know it's only going to set up an awesome episode next week.
----------SPOILERS----------
Where to begin on this one. Probably with disappointment. Even though I knew it was coming, even though I knew it would not be a strong episode, I was still disappointed in the lack of plot movement. The big reveals for me were Sawyer's plans to marry Juliet (which was nearly as sad as Charlie's death) and Claire's return (both on and off the island).
Kate has become some sort of rubber ball/fickle bitch. She keeps bouncing back and forth between Jack and Sawyer. Just stick to a man and be done with it.
Jin, I love Jin. Sure, I hated (and still do) his older persona, but I love that he's still looking for Sun and has developed into a much more intelligent character.
Jack is, well, still himself. Rash, unthinking, and almost as wishy-washy as Kate. Not really digging him right now.
Locke, although he was missing form this episode, is starting to grow on me. Mostly the off-island version with his words of wisdom, but also his Smoke Monster version that kicks ass and takes names.
Claire. Wow. She's back. Off-island she looks as sweet as ever. Even when Ethan Goodspeed is there to save her baby Aaron. On-island, she looks as crazy as Rousseau. And is apparently "infected" with whatever the illness is. Not sure what all that means, but I'm sure we'll find out. Which further proves a new theory I have. But more on that later.
In the end, I want to be surprised by all the changes (new characters, new locations, old characters coming back, etc.) but I'm a LOST fanatic now and honestly, not much really surprises me with the show anymore. Sure, there's still some shocks when I see people (like Ethan or Claire) but I expect that. I expect to walk away from the show scratching my head wondering if this whole thing has been a dream. So while this episode was disappointing at times, I know it's only going to set up an awesome episode next week.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
LOST Predictions
Just a few predictions here for you to think about while watching LOST tonight.
1 - Sayid is still Sayid. He is not Jacob, nor can Jacob "possess" anyone. However, Sayid will have been "changed" by his "rebirth" and will now fight the bad guys.
2 - Neck wounds link Dan and Jack. Ever wonder why Jack had a bloody neck on the airplane? Did it make you think about Faraday and his neck wound on the island before he died?
3 - The whole alternate-time line theory is a hoax. It will turn out to be somebody having a dream during their coma, sleep, or some other unconscious state.
4 - There is more than one smoke monster. You read that right. There is a "good" and a "bad" smoke monster. Remember Jacob's cabin was surrounded by ash? And Jacob asked Locke for help? We know the ash keeps the smoke monster out (or in) so could that have been the bad monster that was somehow locked in there? And what about when the smoke monster came up to Mr. Eko? It didn't kill him, right? But it did the second time? Hmm, I think there's two of them.
5 - And finally, I found out where the polar bears went to after they left the island. You know one ended up in Tunisia at the exit point of the donkey wheel. But apparently the rest of them ended up on the east coast of the United States, specifically in a rural area of Virginia. I even have a photo of one their current keepers as proof.
1 - Sayid is still Sayid. He is not Jacob, nor can Jacob "possess" anyone. However, Sayid will have been "changed" by his "rebirth" and will now fight the bad guys.
2 - Neck wounds link Dan and Jack. Ever wonder why Jack had a bloody neck on the airplane? Did it make you think about Faraday and his neck wound on the island before he died?
3 - The whole alternate-time line theory is a hoax. It will turn out to be somebody having a dream during their coma, sleep, or some other unconscious state.
4 - There is more than one smoke monster. You read that right. There is a "good" and a "bad" smoke monster. Remember Jacob's cabin was surrounded by ash? And Jacob asked Locke for help? We know the ash keeps the smoke monster out (or in) so could that have been the bad monster that was somehow locked in there? And what about when the smoke monster came up to Mr. Eko? It didn't kill him, right? But it did the second time? Hmm, I think there's two of them.
5 - And finally, I found out where the polar bears went to after they left the island. You know one ended up in Tunisia at the exit point of the donkey wheel. But apparently the rest of them ended up on the east coast of the United States, specifically in a rural area of Virginia. I even have a photo of one their current keepers as proof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
