Digital Fare

Sidebar: The Spider-Man movie no one will make

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:34:00 +0000

I want to see a Spider-Man movie that focuses on Peter Parker. He's in college trying to juggle his course work with freelance photography. He makes friends, upsets girlfriends, eats dinner with Aunt May every Sunday, and manages to pick up a research grant his junior year.

Peter Parker as Spider-Man is in the backdrop of all this. Spider-Man is the focus of Peter's work for The Bugle. Spider-Man is the way Peter travels across the city. Spider-Man stops the mugging Peter would have witnessed.

I love that superheroes movies are still trendy ten years after the first Spider-Man movie came out, but I'd like to see a story that focuses on the human side of the superhero.

On Hypable: Why I Keep Watching Grimm

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 04:18:00 +0000

I wrote a piece about why Grimm still interests me, and Hypable featured it today. You can read it here.

Pinterest: First Impressions

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:16:00 +0000

With all the buzz around Pinterest, I wanted to check it out and see why some people are saying Pinterset is going to stick around. Here are my first impressions of the latest site to break into the top ten social networks.

Pinterest is still in open-beta, so I asked for an invite to join. Three days later, I received a link in my email. At the moment, you need a Twitter or Facebook account in order to join Pinterest. I understand this helps reduce spam accounts and makes finding your friends easier. That's all well and good, but I'd rather have an account that stands on its own and doesn't depend on another site.

After registering, a page with pins (essentially images) loads and you click on what interests you. Pinterest uses your choices to generate people for you to follow. I like that Pinterest embraces new users by connecting them to people on the site, but I wish the suggestions for people to follow stayed suggestions. Pinterest automatically subscribed me to a dozen people based on my few clicks. I would rather see the suggestions and then choose if I want to subscribe to people. One image that I liked doesn't necessarily mean I will like the rest of the content that person posts. I ended up going through each profile of the people Pinterest gave me to follow and unfollowed them. Then I browsed pins by category and found people that I actually wanted to subscribe to.

I've seen taste preferences done better on Etsy. When you join Etsy, the site asks you to choose items that you like from a random selection on the page. Based on your choices, Etsy will suggest other items you might like. Suggested content based on previously-chosen content. Pinterest, though, suggests people to follow based on your content choices. Pinterest's suggestions can't match your preferences as well as Etsy's can.

On the positive side, I've seen more activity on the content I posted compared to a new account on other social networks. But that's not enough to make me check in often. It might be because I'm new and still poking around, but I've been going on Pinterest about once a day. Compare that to Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr, where I check in multiple times each day. Pinterset doesn't have that much of my attention yet, but the coming months might change that.

If you'd like to see what I've done on Pinterest so far, here's a link to my profile.

Sherlock: Post Reichenbach Fall, Take 2

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:25:00 +0000

I re-watched The Reichenbach Fall again today. Moriarty said something to Sherlock that stuck out to me:

"That's your weakness. You always expect things to be clever."

What if that was a hint to us? Maybe the way Sherlock faked his death is simple and clear-cut. Clever enough to fool the snipers, but not complicated. No drugs. No muscle relaxants. No editing tricks.

After my previous post, Robinson (whoever you are), commented that Sherlock did jump off the roof, but into a padded laundry truck. I didn't notice the truck the first time because I was watching John, but the truck drives away from the body on the ground...presumably, the double's body. The double was already dead and bloodied to look like he fell from the roof, when really he fell from the truck. Molly is going to examine the corpse, so she can lie about the body's actual time of death. It fits.

Sherlock: Post Reichenbach Fall

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:15:00 +0000

It's been only a few hours since I've seen the Sherlock finale, but here's the theory I've pieced together. It isn't solid, but I think it's plausible. Spoilers after the cut.

First, the facts:

Irene Adler successfully faked her death and Sherlock helped her fake her death a second time in "A Scandal in Belgravia." She said something like records are only as good as you keep them. Sherlock knows that too.
The man who kidnapped the ambassador's children looked like Sherlock, similar enough that the girl screamed when she saw Sherlock in the hospital. Moriarty set up the look-alike.
Mycroft said they've been keeping an eye on Moriarty.
Molly offered to help Sherlock and he meets her in the lab at night. Moriarty meets Sherlock on the rooftop and it's daytime. That means Sherlock had all night to plan the details of how he'd fake his death.

On to the Maybes and What-ifs:

Sherlock did go to Mycroft for help and asked him to track down the look-alike kidnapper.
Sherlock asked Molly to help him fake his death and they worked on the plan during the night.
Sherlock was telling the truth: he's on the side of angels but he isn't one of them. He is not a hero. What if Sherlock threatened the look-alike the same way Moriarty threatened Sherlock? "Sacrifice yourself or else I'll kill all the people you care about." Sherlock forced the look-alike to jump off the roof.

The phone conversation with John is a bit tricky. I do believe that's the real Sherlock talking to John, but I don't think Sherlock is standing on that rooftop. The man standing on the rooftop looking down at John is the look-alike. From the roof to the ground, there's no switching people, no mid-air saves, and no one could survive that fall. So the man who jumps and dies cannot be the real Sherlock.

Here's the thing: the camera doesn't lie, but editing can. I think the real Sherlock is standing on another rooftop nearby, safely watching and in clear view of the look-alike. Sherlock ordered the look-alike to imitate his movements, so the look-alike holds the phone as if he's talking to John and he reaches out his arm as if he's the real Sherlock.

The scene is edited together to make us think that the real Sherlock is talking and looking at John at the same time, but that isn't what's happening. The look-alike is looking at John but Sherlock is talking to John.

Then the look-alike jumps to his death. The man on the bicycle (someone from the Homeless Network?) bumps into John and knocks him down. That was part of the plan: make John watch the fall, knock him down, and disorient him. Hope that he's too upset to look too closely at the body. Too disoriented to notice it isn't quite Sherlock.

Edited to add: Sherlock says to John, "Keep your eyes fixed on me." Sherlock wanted John to watch the look-alike so that John wouldn't look around and spot the real Sherlock. And it fits with what Molly noticed: Sherlock shows his sadness only when he thinks John can't see him. Sherlock must have been sad to fake his death without telling John and sad that he has to leave Baker Street, and he couldn't let John see him.

Non-Spoilery Thoughts on The Fault in Our Stars by John Green

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 03:28:00 +0000

I finished reading The Fault in Our Stars tonight, sooner than I thought, because of one quality John’s books all have. I want to keep listening to his characters.

His writing is transparent and simple. He captures teenagers’ conversations and interactions believably and yet while I’m reading, I have to stop and stare at the page every now and then because suddenly there’s a sentence that says “I fell in love the way you fall asleep: slowly, and then all at once.” Sentences like those are beautiful, stand out against the rest of the narrative, and yet they feel completely natural. Totally organic to the story.

I’ve read John’s previous novels and while each deals with different themes, all of them dig deeper to show something about humanity. The Fault in Our Stars is no different.

Half of one of the bookshelves in my room is dedicated to the Books You Read In High School (Or Should Have Anyway). I’ve got The Great Gatsby up there. Catch-22 and Cather in the Rye. Some Vonnegut, some Hemingway. John’s novels are there too because they belong with thoughtful literature.

Done with Kill Arthur plots

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:25:00 +0000

Or, The Futility of Lethally Endangering the Protagonist in his Origin Story

*Spoilers for season 4 of Merlin*

-----

Besides not having a magic reveal, my major disappointment in season 4 was the repetitive plot of someone trying to kill Arthur. We could have seen more diverse stories than the villain of the week with a plan to kill the King.

After one or two episodes where Arthur might have died, it’s silly to keep writing that sort of plot. The audience knows that Arthur can’t die because he hasn’t become the Once and Future King yet. Arthur, Merlin, and (probably) Gwen are safe in every episode.

We know they can’t die, so we know that they’ll make it through any trouble that comes up. It’s interesting to see the characters react to fatal situations, but the threat of danger does nothing for the audience. After we’ve seen what characters do when their friends are hurt, we’re done with that story and that development. There isn’t any more to cover there.

This is the difficulty in origin stories: you can’t do any permanent damage to the protagonist. You have to find a way to develop characters without putting them in danger all the time.

Merlin: The Sword in the Stone Review

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:40:00 +0000

I like Merlin, but I also forgive poor characterization, plot holes, and general stupidity when it happens. The acting and the beautiful cinematography usually make up for it. Unfortunately, I was doing a lot of forgiving for the finale.

Spoilers after the cut.

First, the good things. These last two episodes did an excellent job of dividing time between what's happening in the castle and what's happening with Arthur and Merlin. I didn't feel like anything was rushed or slowed down.

Tristan and Isolde were a nice addition to the story. Their love serves as a parallel for Arthur and Gwen. They're two excellent warriors and they were fun to watch in battle.

Merlin made logical decisions in these episodes. Calling for the dragon to fight Agravaine's men. Killing Agravaine (finally). Setting up the legend of Excalibur. Turning into Dragoon to taunt Morgana and drain her power. One mistake (and here comes the forgiving): he should have checked that Morgana was dead. She got away again and my guess is she'll attack Camelot again next year.

Another thing I'm forgiving: Arthur contradicted himself. He went from not being able to trust Gwen to marrying her at the end of the episode? I would have liked to see him ask Gwen to stay in Camelot and then have the chance to rebuild their trust. Or, Arthur should have forgiven Gwen already and then set up the wedding in this episode. Instead the writers gave us a wonderful scene where Arthur tells Merlin that he needs to be more careful about who he trusts, and then Arthur quickly forgives that Gwen cheated on him and asks her to be Queen. I'm disappointed in the writing but not by what happened. At least Gwen is supposed to be Queen.

The biggest disappointment for me this season was that Arthur still doesn't know about Merlin's magic. Again in this episode, there were opportunities for a reveal. Merlin could have openly used his magic during the battle. When Arthur told Merlin that they have no match for Morgana, Merlin could have revealed his power.

I would have been happy with a quiet, low-key reveal. There in the forest when Merlin was telling Arthur about Albion, he could have said something about a powerful wizard at Arthur's side. Merlin could have told Arthur who he really was and all he needed was a small show of proof. Merlin could have conjured flames in the palm of his hand, exactly what he did with Gilly. But no. Merlin strategically used his magic to save Camelot and Arthur didn't know anything about it.

Hopefully the magic reveal will happen early in season 5. I think there's potential for great storytelling and character development, and it'd be nice to see the writers take advantage of that.

Fixing the Future

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 01:07:00 +0000

I watched Back to the Future parts 1 and 2 earlier this week (for the thirty-fifth time, probably), and this is the first time I realized the problem with the part that takes place in 2015.

Marty can’t make changes in the future that will stay permanent and set, not if his timeline (and by extension, his family’s) is in flux.

There are two basic theories of time travel. One, everything is in flux all the time, so you can make changes anywhere on the timeline that will affect other parts of the timeline. Two, everything is fixed so no matter when you are and what you do, you cannot change what is supposed to happen.

The Back to the Future trilogy seems to follow the first theory, except for when Marty and Doc Brown go to 2015.

Marty poses as his son to save him from getting caught up in gang activity and going to jail. But just because Marty saved his son in one instance, that doesn’t mean his future is all right in every instance.

I understand when Marty meets his teenage parents in 1955 and his interaction with them changes who they are in 1985. The past affects the present. Makes sense.

But 1985 Marty can’t go to the future and make permanent changes. When Marty goes to 2015, he’s going to the future that results from the moment he left in 1985. The choices that he makes in his life will always be tweaking his future. If he chose to go to 2015 from a different point in his life, he would be going to a different 2015. So saving his son once doesn’t save him in every possible future.

If Doc Brown wanted to help Marty and his family avoid bad things in 2015 (one possible 2015), all he had to do was tell Marty what happens and when. Then Marty could take the appropriate action when the time came, instead of jumping to the future to make changes. And maybe all along, with Marty knowing what could happen to his son in 2015, he’s making changes to his life that bypass the problem Doc Brown saw in the first place.

That’s the flaw in Back to the Future’s plot: characters from the present make changes in the future that are supposed to take hold.

I was thinking about another character who interferes with his own timeline: John Connor in The Terminator. But his situation is different. Future John sends people and information back in time to help his younger self. Future John is making changes in the past, but we see the story from the younger John’s perspective. Even so, there’s a paradox here: if Future John is changing his past, he is changing himself. All the changes he makes to younger John’s life should result in a different life for and a different John in the future. If that’s true, then how was there the Future John who made those changes in the first place? The other option is, John’s timeline is fixed and The Terminator follows theory 2. But then Future John would realize that no matter what he changed in the past, the same events happened and he ends up in the same position. It would be pointless for him to keep interfering with his past if he knows he can’t make a difference. Paradoxes, time loops, alternate universes. These are themes in most of the stories I enjoy.

I’ve been watching a lot things that deal with time travel and alternate universes (or the things I’ve watched have had this common thread running through), and I find myself using theories from one show to explain events in another show.

Kyle Reese and John Connor’s birth never made sense to me until I watched “Blink,” an episode of Doctor Who where the Doctor explains that time is not a straight line but rather “more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.”

Peter Bishop (Fringe) linked two universe to avoid destroying both, but in the process, he deleted himself from existence. Or, nearly. But where was he in between his non-existence and his return? The Doctor rebooted the universe and now Amy has parents when she didn’t have them before. Or did she and she doesn’t remember? I’m still working those out, but I find myself thinking of all these characters and ideas together. I sort out which theory explains which situation.

But Amy has an interesting situation. Mad, Impossible Pond. When we first met her she was a young girl who lived in a big house with no parents and an aunt that was away. But she doesn’t know what happened to her parents--she just never had them. Did they abandon her? Were they erased from existence? Where did Amy come from? She’s been in two seasons of Doctor Who, and we still don’t know. Then, more confusion, the Doctor rebooted the universe, and now Amy has parents. Where did they come from? Or did they come back? Amy tells the Doctor she’s scared/worried/frustrated/concerned because she remembers both versions: her life when she didn’t have parents and her life when she does. Both feel true to her. Amy gains a set of parents, and that makes no sense to me even though it shouldn’t matter. Rebooting the universe has nothing to do with timelines. The Doctor didn’t change anything about Amy’s past or future. He pushed the universe’s reset button and some things came out differently. But because we’re watching the episodes sequentially, I feel like Amy’s parents came out of nowhere because we knew her without parents first. But that’s not the right way of thinking about it. New universe, so things can be different. There doesn’t have to be any continuity or progression.

But there’s still the question of existence and non-existence. Either Amy didn’t exist and then she did (and still does) or her parents did exist but then didn’t (and now do). And the Doctor knows Amy is impossible. He knows her life doesn’t make sense and that’s why he wanted to travel with her. But I wonder, is he trying to figure out why Amy doesn’t make sense? Or is he content with the nonsense (and should we be too)?

NBC's Grimm - Pilot episode

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:59:00 +0000

Whoever schedules shows on NBC needs to take a look at Friday nights. The 9 o'clock slot already has Supernatural and Fringe. Most of Grimm's potential audience will be tuned to FOX or the CW, but that's okay. That's why we have Hulu.

I don't want to spoil the pilot episode, so I'll say it is a re-imagining of Little Red Robin Hood. The main character, Nick, is a policeman and he inherits the family gift/curse: he sees monsters who are blending in as humans. Everything has a Buffy feel (but the dialogue isn't as good) and the original Grimm fairy tales will offer great episodic material.

Grimm has the potential to be a great series, a mini scary movie each week, much like how Supernatural started out. But Fridays nights are Fringe nights for me, so I'll be watching on Hulu.

Did you watch the Grimm pilot? What did you think of it?

Sidebar: A higher caliber of children's TV

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:41:00 +0000

If networks took children's programming as seriously as some adult programming, I can't even imagine the quality of work that would come out of that line of thinking. Imagine a Jason Katims, Joss Whedon, J.J. Abrams, or Steven Moffat for kids' TV. Imagine if we had storytellers of that caliber who wanted to make shows children would enjoy.

We'd get something like what J.K. Rowling did for children's literature, but this time for children's television. That's what we need.

Sidebar: McGonagall and the Slytherins

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:09:00 +0000

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Professor McGonagall sent all the Slytherins to the dungeons after the Death Eaters attacked Hogwarts. The scene is the same in the book and in part two of the film. Some fans made a fuss about it, saying McGonagall assumed all the Slytherin students were untrustworthy. I don't see it that way.

Many of the Slytherin students' parents were Death Eaters and supporters of Lord Voldemort. Chances are, many students' parents were part of Voldemort's followers who attacked Hogwarts. By ordering all the Slytherin students to the dungeons, McGonagall took them out of the fight. Those students didn't have to choose between fighting against their parents or against their peers. They didn't have to make a difficult decision in dangerous circumstances. McGonagall's decision kept students safe and minimized unpredictability among them. That's good for the students and good for the school. Sending the Slytherins to the dungeons was the best decision McGonagall could have made.

Does everything a spider can

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:50:00 +0000

For several weeks in July, August, and September, I watched every episode of Spider-Man, the animated series that was on FOX from 1994 to 1997. I had seen most of the episodes growing up, but seeing them again now, I realize how much this cartoon series respected children as an audience.

I see respect for the audience in several aspects of the show:

1. Complex characters. Peter Parker is consistently an intelligent and flawed character. We see how smart he is in figuring how to defeat villains, and when he makes mistakes it's because his arrogance, carelessness, or anger. Everything Peter does makes sense, though. His actions are logical reactions to what happens to him and around him. The villains are relatively flat compared to Peter, but even they have logical motivations. Doc Ock needs resources for his research. The Green Goblin sabotages the King Pin's work so that Norman Osbourne can keep a clean reputation.

2. Multiple story lines at the same time. Episodes often contain one problem for Peter Parker and one for Spider-Man. Besides those, we see plot developments with Mary Jane, Harry, and Aunt May.

3. Multi-episode stories. Spider-Man often carried a story over several episodes. Recaps at the beginning of every episode probably helped children follow along, but even so, children had to pay close attention to make sense of the larger story. Characters and other elements from early seasons came back in the final season of the show. That's a lot of detail to ask children to remember.

4. Crossovers. I'm impressed with the number of Marvel characters Spider-Man features. I started keeping track after I realized crossovers were a recurring theme. The X-Men, Punisher, Daredevil, Iron Man, War Machine, Captain America, Blade, Red Skull, and Fantastic Four all teamed up with or fought against Spider-Man in the series.

Spider-Man respected its child audience by offering entertaining, complex stories. The banter and action scenes so typical of superhero cartoons are there, but so are deeply emotional scenes, like when Peter loses Mary Jane. The creators of the series must have felt that children could follow and enjoy these stories. Or else, why would they bother writing such developed plots and characters?

I feel like today's creators of children's television have much lower expectations for their audience. Children today are lucky to watch characters who behave rationally, let alone see complicated and satisfying story lines.

Facebook so you don't have to

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:00:00 +0000

Facebook is supposed to make social interaction easier. You post status updates and photos. All of your friends see them. Your news feed shows you everything your friends have been doing lately. It makes sense: friends update each other all the time. We have a central hub that shows what's happening in each others' lives.

But more and more, I find that Facebook gives me less of a reason to talk to friends, or to catch up with those I haven't seen in a while. Facebook has taken on the effort of maintaining relationships so we don't have to.

Before Facebook, if I wanted to ask a friend how she's doing at her new job, I'd pick up the phone and call her. Or we'd hang out sometime and chat. With Facebook, all I have to do is read her status updates to know if she likes her job or not.

It's not just status updates. I don't have to remember birthdays anymore. We don't print photos and share them. Job promotions, accomplishments, and even wedding announcements are on my news feed before I talk to the person offline.

But reading a Facebook update is not the same as talking to the person and, for some reason, there's still an unwritten rule about Facebook conversations crossing over into "real life." That leaves us in an odd place.

Say I wish a friend happy birthday on Facebook. Then I see that friend over the weekend. Does my birthday message on Facebook replace me saying happy birthday in person? If I say happy birthday in person after saying it on Facebook, am I repeating myself? Should I mention the Facebook message when we talk in person? Or is that a faux pas?

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but Facebook is changing the way people interact and I don't think it's an improvement.

Saturday Sub Announcement

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 04:48:00 +0000

After eight straight weeks of Saturday Sub, I'm going to move to non-weekly posts for those. I've gone through the channels I watch the most, so from now on you can expect one or two Saturday Subs a month--but not one every week.

A network model for children's television?

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:40:00 +0000

I don't know a lot about how the television industry works, but it seems like children's shows don't start the same way as adult dramas. For a show like House, they figured out the cast and characters, story lines, and a pilot episode. Then they pitched it around to network executives until they found one (FOX) that wanted to add the show to its fall line-up.

Children's television isn't treated the same way. We've got two superpowers, Disney and Nickelodeon, that host most of children's programming. Cartoon Network, Fox Kids, Kids WB, and PBS have a few original shows too, but they've been on a decline since Saturday Morning TV faded away.

Why can't we give children's programming the same treatment as network dramas? Have an idea, do the leg work, produce a pilot, and pitch it around.

In the current system, the best chance to make children's programming is on Disney and Nickelodeon. Maybe if those networks had outside competition, we'd have better programming for children to watch. Kids definitely deserve better entertainment than what's on TV right now.

Saturday Sub - RoboFillet

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:00:00 +0000

RoboFillet (aka Rohan) is an Australian vlogger. Besides vlogs, he creates his own comedy sketches and covers current events in the Poultry Press. Or, he mixes all of that into one video.

Rohan scripts and plans the majority of his videos, so they're well-made, organized, and fluid. He's one of the few vloggers I watch who talks about vlogging and encourages new vloggers. Two examples:

and

You can watch more of Rohan's videos on his channel.

P.S. When Rohan says "Hello, chickens!" it's not an insult. That's what he calls his viewers.

Saturday Sub - Nerimon

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Nerimon (aka Alex Day) is the third British YouTuber I found because of Doctor Who. (The first two being LittleRadge and Charlieissocoollike.) How do I begin to explain Alex Day?

Alex Day is flawless.

Or nearly, anyway. I'm not going to do the rest of the Mean Girls bit.

Most of Alex's videos are true-to-form vlogs. He talks about his life, interests, and current events. Always with sarcastic commentary, occasionally more than a PG-13 rating would allow. The videos that aren't vlogs are usually original music or covers. Lately, Alex has been experimenting with other formats.

But watch a few Nerimon videos, and Alex's vlogging style shines. He's sincere (until he pokes fun at viewers) and has a natural conversation with the camera. Where other YouTubers use editing gimmicks to keep viewers' attention, Alex nitpicks reward card systems. For example:

You can watch more of Alex's videos on his channel.

Saturday Sub - BitCrunch

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Here's something a little different for this week's Saturday Sub: I'm introducing you to a YouTuber I know little about.

I found BitCrunch because he started the Nigel Thornberry meme that blazed through Tumblr for a few days at the end of June. I followed his Tumblr page to his YouTube channel, and voila, here's an American teen who makes music and has a (dark) sense of humor. At least, I hope he's joking when I think he's joking.

I haven't seen many of his videos yet, but he uploads original music videos, vlogs, and things like this:

(Head's up: Mild language in this video. If there are little ones around or you're at work, listen with headphones.)

<p>&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;</p>

You can watch more of BitCrunch's videos on his channel. I'll do that too when I have some spare time to catch up.

Meanwhile on Etsy

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:44:00 +0000

About two weeks ago, I started a shop on Etsy to sell beaded jewelry that I make. This happened for a few reasons.

Job searching is frustrating, and I needed to do something fun and productive when I wasn't combing through job postings, submitting resumes, and writing cover letters.
I've been making beaded jewelry for a while and I enjoy it, so spending more time doing that is a plus.
There's potential to make my hobby self-sustainable.

I listed my tenth item in my shop today. When I have 15-20 items, I'll focus on listing one or two items per week, instead of each weekday.

I usually work with beading wire, elastic cord, and glass beads. Here's a screenshot of my shop, Beaded Thoughts, so far:

I've been spending more time on Etsy looking at various crafts and shops, and there's so much to see. When you make an Etsy account, you can rate items according to your taste. Then the site generates lists of items that match your taste, but that's only one way to browse Etsy. You can navigate by categories, most recent items, and items made by people in your local area.

I like that I'm able to incorporate my hobby with a site like Etsy and have exposure to so much creativity.

Saturday Sub - Vlogbrothers

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Vlogbrothers was co-founded in 2007 by two brothers, John Green and Hank Green, as a way to communicate with each other non-textually. What started out as updates and conversations between brothers turned into one of the largest sub-communities on YouTube: Nerdfighteria. I won't go into explanations about Nerdfigtheria and Nerdfighters here because that topic could be a series of posts on its own. John and Hank made an FAQ video, if you're curious.

John writes books. Hank writes music and runs EcoGeek. They post new videos every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday about current events, history, language, science, economics, literature, and more. If you can think of a topic, the Vlogbrothers have probably talked about it.

And, oh yeah. John's next book comes out in January and 150,000 people have already pre-ordered it. He's signing every book in the first printing.

<p>&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;youadlkfjsd&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;</p>

You can watch more Vlogbrothers videos on their channel.

Saturday Sub - ItsJustSomeRandomGuy

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:00:00 +0000

ItsJustSomeRandomGuy started with parodies of the Mac vs. PC commercials, but he adjusted the concept for Marvel vs. DC commentary. Since then, RandomGuy has incorporated characters from recent superhero films (X-Men, Batman, The Watchmen, Green Lantern, Thor). He even created original stories that mix the comic book universes, complete with villains, cliffhangers, and plot twists.

All the fantasy and superhero films that have been coming out offer lots opportunities for crossovers, and RandomGuys is always there to ~~save the day~~ make us laugh. For example, this Marvel/DC/Harry Potter parody:

You can watch more of RandomGuy's videos on his channel.

Chameleon Circuit's Still Got Legs

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 04:03:00 +0000

Image from dftba.com

Chameleon Circuit released their second album, Still Got Legs, last week. The band makes music inspired by Doctor Who with well-written lyrics, catchy melodies, and enough variation to make distinct tracks but a cohesive album.

I've been listening to Still Got Legs for the past six days. I could write about each track, but I'd rather write about my three favorite songs on the album.

Regenerate Me sounds like the Doctor's victory song. A Gryffindor Rally Cry for the last Time Lord. My favorite part is from 1:11 to 1:28, a five-part chorus that quotes the Doctor Who soundtrack. This is the second song on the album (after a twenty-three-second instrumental track), and it serves as an introduction to the Doctor. From the lyrics:

Ten personas, I've walked the earth
Sole protector of the human race
You will know me by the big blue box
But you may never know my face

Mr. Pond is from Rory's perspective, about his concern for Amy's safety around the Doctor. My knowledge of classic Doctor Who is limited, but I think Rory and Amy are the first married couple to travel with the Doctor. We've seen companions' friends and families voice concerns about traveling with the Doctor, but never a husband. This track captures Rory's feelings perfectly.

I've loved The Doctor Is Dying since Alex Day posted an acoustic version of it on his channel. The song is about the Tenth Doctor's death. Like many of the songs on the album, the lyrics quote lines from episodes. The Tenth Doctor's emotions as he approaches his end are all here: his fear when the Time Lords return, his anguish when he realizes he has to die to save Wilfred, and his serenity when he visits past companions.

This is a sampling of the songs I like the most on Still Got Legs, but all of the songs on the album are fun to listen to (and addicting, you've been warned).

You can listen to all of Still Got Legs for free on Alex Day's website, buy the physical copy from DFTBA Records or download tracks from iTunes.

Other things of interest...a video from Chameleon Circuit about the album release and a handy graphic that shows who did what on each track.

Saturday Sub - Charlieissocoollike

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Saturday Sub is a weekly feature where I introduce one of the YouTube channels on my subscription list.

Charlie McDonnell is British, 20 years old, and reached one million subscribers a few weeks ago. I found his channel in 2008 because I was looking for a clip from a Doctor Who episode but instead I found a video of Charlie singing about the Weeping Angels. At the time, I didn't know that video was the beginning of Chameleon Circuit, a Doctor Who-inspired band made up of Charlie, Alex Day, Liam Dryden, and Eddplant. (They released their second album on July 12. You can listen to it for free here.)

The content on Charlie's channel varies. When I started watching, most of Charlie's videos were vlogs. Over the years he has uploaded original songs, challenges, and sketches. Charlie's videos are well-made and creative. He makes outstanding videos look effortless.

Here's a video about not making a video, and a lesson on how procrastination works.

You can watch more of Charlie's video on his channel.

Venom to his Spiderman

noreply@blogger.com (Kali) — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:41:00 +0000

Since Netflix added Spider-Man, the animated series (1994-1998), to instant streaming, I've been watching season 1 and remembering what a great show it was.

"The Alien Costume" is a three-part story in the middle of season one. The symbiote comes to Earth with a space shuttle and attaches to Spider-Man. Peter fights it off, and it takes over Eddie Brock to become Venom. This story is the animated version of everything Spider-Man 3 should have been. But I don't want to talk about the film's emo Peter Parker.

I want to talk about how Venom is a reflection of Spider-Man and why that makes him such an interesting villain.

I'm going off the animated series here (which I expect is close to the original story in the comics). Venom knows everything about Spider-Man and Peter Parker because the symbiote tried to bond with Peter first. This gives Venom a few advantages.

1. Venom can block Spider-Man's spidey sense. Venom is the only thing that can sneak up on Peter, and we see how jumpy and paranoid Peter feels because of that.

2. Venom has Peter's memories, so he knows Mary Jane Watson and Aunt May.

3. Venom has all the same powers as Spider-Man, except he's stronger.

Venom matches and beats Spider-Man in strength and ability. He plays mind games. He threatens to expose Spider-Man and hurt his loved ones. Venom is dangerous because he knows how to fight Peter Parker and Spider-Man. He can attack both identities.

This idea of a villain who is a reflection of the hero reminded me of "Amy's Choice," a series 5 episode of Doctor Who. The Dream Lord is a mocking version of the Doctor (Time Lord) that comes from the Doctor's mind. He hates the Doctor, he taunts Amy, and he puts Amy, Rory, and the Doctor in a cruel test of distinguishing dreams from reality.

But there's an important difference between the Dream Lord and Venom. Venom is a reflection of Spider-Man, but a separate entity. The Dream Lord is part the Doctor, the dark thoughts about issues the Doctor doesn't want to face. Venom's threat is in being able to match Spider-Man. The Dream Lord's threat is in the Doctor torturing himself.

These types of villains are compelling because they aren't simply evil: they're evil that comes from the hero. That complexity shows a flawed side of the hero, and that's good storytelling.