Never before have I had so many shows premiere at the same time! Well, I suppose in the not so distant past, TV networks did adhere to the "premiere week," but there were only three networks. Now with the additional networks and other popular cable channels, TV execs have been a little more strategic in their releases of shows, even premiering as late as October. They still do this (like Touch and The Walking Dead), but what happened this last week? I swear it feels like 90% of my shows came back in a new virtual "premiere week."
Whatever happened, my DVR is very busy and it will take me a while to catch up with all the premieres. My DVR even missed recording Grimm this past Friday and I'm not very happy with Time Warner's system right now. If you don't see your favorite sci-fi show listed below, give me another week or so.
A couple of weeks ago, I gave my thoughts on the Pre-Wave (shows that came out a little early or in late summer). That included Alphas, Warehouse 13, Doctor Who, and Grimm.
Now my newest reviews ...
Revolution (2 episodes in): This show reminds me of Jericho and this is a good thing. The world has fallen apart and governments have ceased. Militia groups have risen up and try to gain control. This show has a lot of potential.
But will they grab this potential? The two episodes that I've watched were exciting enough to hold my attention, but it seems to be lacking something, which I'm still trying to figure out. For example, just as Charlie's father dies, he sends her on a quest through the dangerous roads and dangerous city of Chicago to find her uncle ... something I would have expected to take a few episodes. But no, after a commercial break or two, they waltz into Chicago with minimal intervention (except for those bozos who tried to rape and kill them, but no meetups with militia or anything like that) and they find her uncle very quickly.
I'll keep watching, though. It feels like it's leading into something cool.
The Neighbors (1 episode in): This show is really missing something. It might be called something known as "humor." For example, in one scene, the alien wife keeps throwing plates out her window as her new-found human friend helps wash the dishes. The human gives a funny look, but no other funny reactions?
The pacing of the jokes are very slow, and I noticed a lot of awkward silences. These are probably meant for the audience to absorb the jokes, but when the jokes fall flat, it comes across as terrible editing. Some music or even a laugh track could have helped. (And if this show needs the obsolete laugh track, perhaps the show itself is obsolete.)
I'll give it one more try, but if they don't deliver, I'll be dropping this show.
Last Resort (1 episode in): There were some really good moments. This could be an exciting show.
However, it felt like they crammed so much stuff into this one hour opening. The pacing was very fast, and some things weren't explained very well. I think a more effective opening would have been to take two hours to present that same amount of material with more explanations, and to give the audience more time to digest what's happening.
Did anyone understand the whole thing of the hide-your-signature device? Was it on the submarine? Or was it not? If so, it didn't seem to work. And if not, why did they bring it up?
I know absolutely nothing about the captain himself. I don't understand why he made his initial decision to disobey direct orders. And I'm not talking about the "it came through secondary channels" argument. Most captains in real life would have carried out the order without hesitation, so what makes this captain so special to do the "right" thing?
The Pakistan incident means almost nothing to me, because nothing was shown other than blips on a map. Did it really happen? I don't know, because I didn't see it happening.
Did they really have to shove a useless sex scene in there? And on a show airing at 8PM? Better put your kids to sleep early Thursday nights, I suppose.
And crammed in at the very end are hints of two types of conspiracies, which are usually revealed in later episodes. If the writers really felt the need to reveal hints of everything in the first episode, then is this all we get for the season? Are they going to be stuck on that LOST-looking island for the whole season and fight a war on several different fronts?
But I'm assuming a lot from just one fast-paced episode. It could be that they meet all my concerns in the next couple of installments. There's a lot of potential in this show, and we'll see if they can maintain the energy.
Person of Interest (1 episode in): This show still has it. It's still fun to watch Reese fight through everything. Well, almost everything.
Finch is now held captive by Root, some new villain. She wants to set the computer free? How exactly does that work?
Reese is trying to blackmail the computer to reveal where Finch is, but will it work?
And who are those new people who fear going to Guantanamo Bay? What do they know and what is their plan?
I can't wait to see how this season unfolds.
As an offside, anyone notice how the writer Jonathan Nolan loves to stick it to the rich greedy dudes in his stories (Batman movies and earlier episodes of Person of Interest)? Long live the 99%, I suppose.
Haven (1 episode in): I'm really hoping this is the last season. It feels like they're starting to wrap things up. I like that the show still has a hint of Stephen King, but I doubt this show can last more than one season, and I want to see how it ends.
The first episode was interesting, though I must admit, I forgot why Nathan has that tattoo on his arm. And also how Duke discovered/revealed his powers. And when did Audrey get captured?
Who wants to bet that mysterious guy is the Colorado Kid? Too easy, isn't it!
I'll keep watching, but probably after getting some of these other shows out of the way. Please end the story!
The Office (2 episodes in): I'm glad this one's coming to an end. The success of the UK series stems a lot from the fact that they only made a few episodes, and they brought it to a satisfying close in the Christmas Special. The US series went on for so long, that for a while it hasn't had much direction. Perhaps they'll find the direction needed now that an ending date is in sight.
A lot of people stopped watching when Michael left, but in some ways this show has gotten even funnier, as now the other characters have their chance to shine.
The first episode was pretty funny with new guys resembling Dwight and Jim. And Angela trying to find a good home for her cat.
The second episode was okay, but as I watched it immediately after watching The Neighbors, it felt pretty dang funny. They still got some energy going. We'll see how things end, and hopefully see Michael Scott one last time.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Hyperion - A New Classic
Dan Simmons' Hyperion may be the best sci-fi book I've read in the last five years. It tells the story of seven pilgrimages who desire to see the mysterious Shrike. He (or it) is the spiky metallic personage on the book cover. Nobody knows exactly what the Shrike does other than killing people.
When I first started reading the book, I was concerned that this was going to be a sci-fi book turned fantasy, because they start in space, and they head towards this planet, and the book cover looks like a typical fantasy cover. The last thing I wanted was for the characters to get stuck on a boring planet.
Another concern arose when I got about twenty pages in and the seven pilgrimages made the decision to tell their life stories. The priest got to go first. I looked ahead and saw that his story went on and on and on for at least 80 pages, and then came the end of Chapter 1. I groaned, not wanting to read a boring John-Galt-like treatise on religion in space.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover my concerns were unfounded.
The format of the entire book is isomorphic to the graphic novel Watchmen. The story is told in the present as well as in the past. A vast majority of the book consists of the recollections of each of the main characters. The story that each character has to tell is amazing. And with each story, the reader learns important information regarding the story of the present, and even information explaining what had occurred in other people's stories.
This technique is effective when done well. As you not only get to really know each character individually, but you get an amazing and complex story as well. The result is Hyperion, a very rich and compelling story.
This book counts as Hard SF, yet it is very light on the dry factor. Fantasy SF fans may forget that they're reading Hard SF.
Simmons somehow puts everything you can imagine into this one book, and he makes it all work: space battles, action, horror, religion, philosophy, artificial intelligence, mystery, romance, the desire of getting published (yes Stephen King fans--that's in there, too), politics, and stuff that jerks tears.
It also contains some adult material, so I would classify it at a low-grade Rated R. It contains a few F-bombs, but Simmons is one of the few authors who knows how to use them sparingly and correctly, and I did not find them to be distracting.
If I must complain about anything, it would have to be the little things. The main character, the Consul, is never named. There's a reason for that, but it really comes down to "because the author wants it to be that way." There's also an epilogue that only exists "because the author wants it to be that way." I can see why Simmons did that, but it didn't do anything for me.
But that's okay, as Simmons delivered a reading experience that I will remember forever.
Monday, September 10, 2012
2012 TV Fall - The Pre-Wave
In preparation of the upcoming Fall premieres, I'll report on how my shows are doing that started in late summer. This is my Pre-wave review.
Alphas (SyFy - 2nd season): This show is still going strong, and I still love the chemistry between the different characters. The "good guys" aren't all good, and the "bad guys" not all bad. Nobody is perfect. And what exactly is Stanton Parish trying to pull? I'm trying to see how he could be good (and preparing the world to fight some greater evil), but how could anyone condone killing innocent people for the "greater good"? I wish more shows would be written as intelligently as this one.
Warehouse 13 (SyFy - 4th season): I still enjoy watching this show, though I'm wondering how much longer they can keep it going. How many different "artifacts" can one come up with? This season feels a little stronger than the last one. The whole astrolabe line is cool--where Artie had no choice but to rewind the clock 24 hours and release some unknown evil that has Data in a tizzy.
As a plus, one episode featured two Star Trek actors, and another episode featured two Psych actors. It's not one of my favorite shows, but they haven't given me any reason to stop watching.
Doctor Who (BBC America - 7th series): Bow ties are still cool. The first episode was enjoyable, though I'm noticing little tiny plot holes here and there. I don't right much care, yet. But I really hope Moffat isn't starting to get sloppy. This is the year that Amy and Rory leave the show. We know that much, but how is it going to happen? And how long can the Doctor stay hidden?
Grimm (NBC - 2nd season): I'm really enjoying this show. It's becoming less of a <blah>-bat of the week and more of a show with some real direction. So far all four episodes aired this season have been excellent. I also love the whole thing of everyone dealing with a Grimm who is somehow different from other Grimms. I hope they keep up the good work.
My only fear: what the heck is NBC doing beginning this show so early? A lot of people like this show, and when a network starts switching nights and pulling these shenanigans, it's usually a portent of cancellation. ("Firefly," anyone?) I highly recommend watching this show and keeping it on the air.
Also, one last item. For some reason, Fox is airing a mysterious 13th episode of "Touch" this coming Friday. I guess there was one episode they decided not to air previously. Is there any show that FOX can show IN ORDER? ("Firefly," anyone?) So don't miss this episode coming on this week. Your guess is as good as mine as to what they're going to touch on.
Alphas (SyFy - 2nd season): This show is still going strong, and I still love the chemistry between the different characters. The "good guys" aren't all good, and the "bad guys" not all bad. Nobody is perfect. And what exactly is Stanton Parish trying to pull? I'm trying to see how he could be good (and preparing the world to fight some greater evil), but how could anyone condone killing innocent people for the "greater good"? I wish more shows would be written as intelligently as this one.
Warehouse 13 (SyFy - 4th season): I still enjoy watching this show, though I'm wondering how much longer they can keep it going. How many different "artifacts" can one come up with? This season feels a little stronger than the last one. The whole astrolabe line is cool--where Artie had no choice but to rewind the clock 24 hours and release some unknown evil that has Data in a tizzy.
As a plus, one episode featured two Star Trek actors, and another episode featured two Psych actors. It's not one of my favorite shows, but they haven't given me any reason to stop watching.
Doctor Who (BBC America - 7th series): Bow ties are still cool. The first episode was enjoyable, though I'm noticing little tiny plot holes here and there. I don't right much care, yet. But I really hope Moffat isn't starting to get sloppy. This is the year that Amy and Rory leave the show. We know that much, but how is it going to happen? And how long can the Doctor stay hidden?
Grimm (NBC - 2nd season): I'm really enjoying this show. It's becoming less of a <blah>-bat of the week and more of a show with some real direction. So far all four episodes aired this season have been excellent. I also love the whole thing of everyone dealing with a Grimm who is somehow different from other Grimms. I hope they keep up the good work.
My only fear: what the heck is NBC doing beginning this show so early? A lot of people like this show, and when a network starts switching nights and pulling these shenanigans, it's usually a portent of cancellation. ("Firefly," anyone?) I highly recommend watching this show and keeping it on the air.
Also, one last item. For some reason, Fox is airing a mysterious 13th episode of "Touch" this coming Friday. I guess there was one episode they decided not to air previously. Is there any show that FOX can show IN ORDER? ("Firefly," anyone?) So don't miss this episode coming on this week. Your guess is as good as mine as to what they're going to touch on.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Rejection Letters Are Better Than Nothing
Since I'm new at this, I'd appreciate any advice in handling markets that just don't send rejection letters. On my blog, you're certain to hear me complain about all the form-letter rejections I keep getting. But you know what? I actually cherish every single rejection I get. It's only when I get no response that I truly get frustrated. Yes, the form-letter rejection hurts, but each one confirms the following:
Over the past few years, I have submitted to several magazines, publications, publishers, and entered a few contests. And the vast majority of them have contacted me to let me know the results. It's the professional thing to do.
But there are a few markets that I have yet to hear from. After a few months and a non-response to follow up queries, I can only assume that either my manuscript was rejected or they never received it. In either case, I assume it's safe to continue on and submit the story elsewhere (though I still have this fear that someone will ding me with a simultaneous submission demerit and blackball me).
And I have yet to return to ANY of these markets. If I don't hear from them, they're leaving me hanging. I don't know where I stand with them, and there really is no desire to give them a second chance with another manuscript. In my humble opinion, these markets are shooting themselves in the foot by NOT sending out rejection letters.
Hopefully, some more experienced and published writers will view this post. If so, I have a couple of questions. Have you had any success with markets that don't usually respond back (that is, they didn't respond to your first manuscript, but they published a subsequent one)? Or do you also avoid those markets in the future? How long do you wait and how many follow up query letters does it take before you assume a rejection? Have you ever been tempted to publish a list of markets that don't respond?
- They received your manuscript.
- They looked at your manuscript.
- They don't want your manuscript.
- You're free to submit your manuscript elsewhere (where simultaneous submissions are an issue).
Over the past few years, I have submitted to several magazines, publications, publishers, and entered a few contests. And the vast majority of them have contacted me to let me know the results. It's the professional thing to do.
But there are a few markets that I have yet to hear from. After a few months and a non-response to follow up queries, I can only assume that either my manuscript was rejected or they never received it. In either case, I assume it's safe to continue on and submit the story elsewhere (though I still have this fear that someone will ding me with a simultaneous submission demerit and blackball me).
And I have yet to return to ANY of these markets. If I don't hear from them, they're leaving me hanging. I don't know where I stand with them, and there really is no desire to give them a second chance with another manuscript. In my humble opinion, these markets are shooting themselves in the foot by NOT sending out rejection letters.
Hopefully, some more experienced and published writers will view this post. If so, I have a couple of questions. Have you had any success with markets that don't usually respond back (that is, they didn't respond to your first manuscript, but they published a subsequent one)? Or do you also avoid those markets in the future? How long do you wait and how many follow up query letters does it take before you assume a rejection? Have you ever been tempted to publish a list of markets that don't respond?
Sunday, September 2, 2012
W1S1: August 2012 Success
Lately I've been struggling with my writing, due to exam studying and overall rejection fatigue. But I was able to squeak one out in August. I wrote and submitted Stanley Saucer: Space Assassin. I even already got my form-letter rejection. So, this is the first time one of my stories went through the whole cycle in one month! Awesome!
Click on the picture above to see other Write-1 Sub-1 winners for August.
Movie Rentals: In Time, TinTin
It's was movie night at the Windhams this past Labor Day weekend. We watched two newish movies, one which I deem overrated and one underrated.
In Time sounds like such a great idea. Instead of money, you pay with minutes of your own life. The movie begins effectively with Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) waking up with just under 24 hours left on his clock. When the clock runs out, that's it. You die. As Salas goes through the normal routine of the day, we learn that the poor all live like this, with so little time left. Everyone has debt to pay, rent, food, transportation, etc. Wages are slowly going down while charges and interest slowly rise. Every day, random people die on the streets.
Everything changes when Salas meets a man with over a century left. This man is bored with life, so he gives everything he has to Salas. Then armed with so much time on his hand, Salas begins a journey to discover the truth behind the whole system.
The movie opens with so much promise and then it falls apart. The action is fun to watch, but there are so many glaring errors that it's just so distracting.
For example, we watch a five minute clip of Salas traveling through several different time zones to go from the poor lands to the rich lands. At every barrier, Salas has to pay a toll. By the time he's finished his journey, the total cost is one whole year. Then when something happens to leave Salas with only two hours left on his arm, he somehow makes the trip back to his hometown. How did he get past those barriers? Didn't it take more than two hours to get back?
Another problem is the silly battle they do similar to arm wrestling. You try to suck the other person's time. Salas explains to someone, "You let your own clock get close to zero, and while they're watching your clock, they don't see that their own clock is almost at zero." But since the transfer between individuals is 1-to-1, this scenario is impossible! If both clocks are almost at zero, where did all that excess time go? Plus, watching these battles is amazingly non-exciting, and I don't care how much dramatic music you add.
And throughout the movie, the amount of time left on Salas's arm doesn't always make sense. It's almost as if this movie just needed another round or two of editing ... as if this movie got rushed to be released. I'm at a loss, as the editor, Zach Staenberg did The Matrix trilogy. And the writer, Andrew Niccol did The Truman Show and Gattaca. So, I'm not sure what went wrong with this movie.
Additionally, the movie builds up certain promises at the beginning that just aren't met. There were so many devices that could have been used to make this a great movie. Instead, it ends in a disappointing whimper.
My advice: the movie is still worth watching for the action. If you can rent it for under $2 and have some extra time on your hand, go check it out.
The Adventures of TinTin was very enjoyable. This is based on the TinTin cartoon series by European comic writer Herge', which began 1929. This is one of the rare US-made movies that tanked in the US, but scored major dough in the foreign market. It only made $77.6M in the US and $294.3M elsewhere. It met its budget and enough to announce a sequel.
When it came out in the US last December, I avoided watching it, because when I saw the words "TinTin" and that cute little dog, my brain told me "Rin Tin Tin." And I had no interest in watching another sappy doggy movie. Even when I got the movie at the rental store with one of those "buy a new release and get this movie free" deals, I still thought I was getting a sappy doggy movie for the kids.
Turns out I was wrong.
It's not a sappy doggy movie, but an Indiana Jones like action flick starring a guy named Tintin. The dog's name turns out to be Snowy. Tintin is a reporter who helps to solve crimes and gets involved in crazy adventures. And I'm not talking a Dora the Explorer type adventure, but rather the kind where guns are shot and people actually die. Yes, I did say Indiana Jones. The fact that Spielberg and Williams team up adds to this feel.
If you're not familiar with this European sensation that is Tintin, I recommend that you look into it. There's a TV series on Netflix. There's this movie you can rent. Go check out what those across the pond enjoy.
Plus, this movie employs the best execution of capture-motion animation technology I've ever seen. It all looks real, and it's not creepy (like in The Polar Express). I was almost convinced that they had live actors playing with just a little digital touching-up, but was surprised to see that the actors look nothing like what's on the screen. It's 100% animated. Well done.
So, check it out. It's possibly the most underrated film of 2011.
In Time sounds like such a great idea. Instead of money, you pay with minutes of your own life. The movie begins effectively with Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) waking up with just under 24 hours left on his clock. When the clock runs out, that's it. You die. As Salas goes through the normal routine of the day, we learn that the poor all live like this, with so little time left. Everyone has debt to pay, rent, food, transportation, etc. Wages are slowly going down while charges and interest slowly rise. Every day, random people die on the streets.
Everything changes when Salas meets a man with over a century left. This man is bored with life, so he gives everything he has to Salas. Then armed with so much time on his hand, Salas begins a journey to discover the truth behind the whole system.
The movie opens with so much promise and then it falls apart. The action is fun to watch, but there are so many glaring errors that it's just so distracting.
For example, we watch a five minute clip of Salas traveling through several different time zones to go from the poor lands to the rich lands. At every barrier, Salas has to pay a toll. By the time he's finished his journey, the total cost is one whole year. Then when something happens to leave Salas with only two hours left on his arm, he somehow makes the trip back to his hometown. How did he get past those barriers? Didn't it take more than two hours to get back?
Another problem is the silly battle they do similar to arm wrestling. You try to suck the other person's time. Salas explains to someone, "You let your own clock get close to zero, and while they're watching your clock, they don't see that their own clock is almost at zero." But since the transfer between individuals is 1-to-1, this scenario is impossible! If both clocks are almost at zero, where did all that excess time go? Plus, watching these battles is amazingly non-exciting, and I don't care how much dramatic music you add.
And throughout the movie, the amount of time left on Salas's arm doesn't always make sense. It's almost as if this movie just needed another round or two of editing ... as if this movie got rushed to be released. I'm at a loss, as the editor, Zach Staenberg did The Matrix trilogy. And the writer, Andrew Niccol did The Truman Show and Gattaca. So, I'm not sure what went wrong with this movie.
Additionally, the movie builds up certain promises at the beginning that just aren't met. There were so many devices that could have been used to make this a great movie. Instead, it ends in a disappointing whimper.
My advice: the movie is still worth watching for the action. If you can rent it for under $2 and have some extra time on your hand, go check it out.
The Adventures of TinTin was very enjoyable. This is based on the TinTin cartoon series by European comic writer Herge', which began 1929. This is one of the rare US-made movies that tanked in the US, but scored major dough in the foreign market. It only made $77.6M in the US and $294.3M elsewhere. It met its budget and enough to announce a sequel.
When it came out in the US last December, I avoided watching it, because when I saw the words "TinTin" and that cute little dog, my brain told me "Rin Tin Tin." And I had no interest in watching another sappy doggy movie. Even when I got the movie at the rental store with one of those "buy a new release and get this movie free" deals, I still thought I was getting a sappy doggy movie for the kids.
Turns out I was wrong.
It's not a sappy doggy movie, but an Indiana Jones like action flick starring a guy named Tintin. The dog's name turns out to be Snowy. Tintin is a reporter who helps to solve crimes and gets involved in crazy adventures. And I'm not talking a Dora the Explorer type adventure, but rather the kind where guns are shot and people actually die. Yes, I did say Indiana Jones. The fact that Spielberg and Williams team up adds to this feel.
If you're not familiar with this European sensation that is Tintin, I recommend that you look into it. There's a TV series on Netflix. There's this movie you can rent. Go check out what those across the pond enjoy.
Plus, this movie employs the best execution of capture-motion animation technology I've ever seen. It all looks real, and it's not creepy (like in The Polar Express). I was almost convinced that they had live actors playing with just a little digital touching-up, but was surprised to see that the actors look nothing like what's on the screen. It's 100% animated. Well done.
So, check it out. It's possibly the most underrated film of 2011.
Total Views = 10,000
I hit another milestone with this blog. 10,000 total views! A vast majority of these views appear to be coming from random people doing Google searches.
Thanks for reading and keep it up. Tell all your friends!
Thanks for reading and keep it up. Tell all your friends!
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Two Funny Political Games
As fitting for the season, here are two funny political games I've come across. The first is an online game, and the second is a variation of a board game that I invented last weekend.
Politricks
In this game, you are Obama trying to save the economy. You must ride your pogo stick, capture boosts that will help you fly higher, and purchase upgrades. You win when you help to bring down the national debt.
This game is hilarious and had me rolling on the ground. You can play it here on NotDoppler.
Hint: It took me about twenty minutes to realize that if you lean forward, you go faster, and you score more points. If you just bounce straight up and down, you get hardly anything, and the game's pretty boring. Just lean forward and the game becomes worth it very quickly.
Sorry!: Democrat Edition
This variation that I created follows the same rules as regular Sorry! (click on picture above to remember these rules), except who moves and which pawns move are highly restricted based on Need. Plus, extra attention is paid on slowing down the person in the Lead.
Since the moves are pretty much dictated by the following rules, you can either play this variation with your friends, OR you can even play this solitaire--that is, one person playing all four players.
#1) Need and Lead are determined by each person's Success Score. The Success Score equals the sum of squares each pawn is away from "Start." A pawn on the square directly next to "Start" has a score of zero. The next square has a score of one. On the modern board, the next player's Start square is 15 squares away, so a pawn on that square has a score of 15. A pawn that has made it Home has the full score of 64. Since you have four pawns, add up all four individual scores to get the total Success Score. The max Success Score is 256, which means all four pawns have made it Home.
Need = the player with the lowest Success Score at the beginning of the turn. In case of tie, Need = the player whose pawn has the lowest individual score (that is, closest to Start). If that's still a tie, compare the second lowest individual scores, and so on. If still a tie, you can either choose the player who's had the most rotten luck so far in the game, or randomly choose the person in Need.
Lead = the player with the highest Success Score at the beginning of the turn. It's possible to have more than one player in the Lead (a tie). If a tie breaker is needed, Lead = the player whose pawn has the highest individual score (closest to Home). If that's still a tie, compare the second highest individual scores, and so on.
#2) At each turn, either the player in Need moves forward OR the player in Lead moves backward. (Clarification: turns do not pass around the board like normal. If a player is in a really bad way, they could move several times in a row until they are no longer in Need.)
#3a) On a forward-moving card, the player in Need first determines if it's possible to attack one of the Lead player's pawns and send them to Start. If so, then that move must be made. If there is more than one one choice of attack, then attack the pawn that is most in the lead.
#3b) Exception to an attack: At most one pawn of a person in Lead can be attacked. If an attack harms more than one pawn (such as landing on a Slide), or someone who is not in the Lead, then that move cannot be made.
#3c) If no attack on the Lead can be made, then the person in Need must move the pawn closest to Start. If that move is illegal (or an illegal attack), then the second closest pawn should be moved.
#3d) If there are no legal moves for the person in Need, then play reverts to the second person in lead, and so on to the fourth person (Lead). If the fourth person can't move, then draw the next card.
#4) The rest of the rules are card specific. Here's what you do with the "special" cards...
Card #1: The player that has the most number of pawns in Start will move his pawn to the square just outside of Start (remember that the score is still zero at this square). If there is a tie, the person most in Need gets to move his pawn out. If there's still a tie, consider if a Lead person can be attacked. If still a tie (such as beginning of the game) then randomly pick a player to move his pawn out. If no pawns can be moved out, then move a player forward one square (see rules 3a-3d).
Card #2: Same as Card #1. This player does not get a second turn, because ... well ... that wouldn't be fair. If no pawns can be moved out, then move a player forward two squares (see rules 3a-3d).
Card #4: The person in Lead will move his furthest out pawn back four spaces. Exceptions: if that pawn is at the end of a slide, and going back four causes the pawn to slide back to where it began, that's not good enough. The person in Lead needs to pay. So move back his second furthest out pawn instead. If moving backwards attacks another player, don't move that pawn. Under no circumstances can you be allowed to move backwards past Start, as that gives way too much of an advantage. No one should be allowed that big a break. If the person in Lead can't move back any pawns, then the second person in Lead moves.
Card #7: This is the Community Card. It must be split between all four players--one pawn each. Start with the person most in Need. If he catches up with the second person most in Need, then they share the balance of the 7 spaces, and so on until you run out of spaces. Give any extra leftover spaces to the person who was originally in Need.
Card #10: The person in Need moves. If he can attack one of the Lead person's pawns by moving backward one space (and there is no forward-ten-spaces capturing move), then that move must be made. Otherwise, move forward ten spaces (rules #3a-#3d).
Card #11: The person in Need can switch a pawn's place with one of the Lead person's pawns, using the following algorithm: First look at the Lead person's most advanced pawn. Go backwards around the board until you come across the first Need person's pawn. If switching the two pawns puts the person in Need in a better position and the person in Lead in a worse position, then switch those pawns. If not, then look at the next Need person's pawn (going backwards). If no legal switches can be made, look at the Lead person's second most advanced pawn, and so. If absolutely no legal switches exist, then the person in Need moves forward 11 spaces (rules #3a-#3d).
Sorry! Card: The person in Need will Sorry a Lead person's pawn using the following algorithm. Start at the square next to Start and move forward until you get to the first Lead person's pawn. Sorry that pawn. If the person in Need has no pawns in Start, then the second person in Need gets to go. In the rare occasion that the person in Lead is the only person who has a pawn in Start, he will forfeit his turn. He can afford it.
#5) If a situation occurs that has not been covered in rules #1-#4, then the players should confer with each other and determine which move would be the most equitable for the good of all players.
#6) Winning the game: Play continues until every player wins, OR everyone decides unanimously that they are fed up with the whole system and refuse to play anymore.
Enjoy!
Politricks
In this game, you are Obama trying to save the economy. You must ride your pogo stick, capture boosts that will help you fly higher, and purchase upgrades. You win when you help to bring down the national debt.
This game is hilarious and had me rolling on the ground. You can play it here on NotDoppler.
Hint: It took me about twenty minutes to realize that if you lean forward, you go faster, and you score more points. If you just bounce straight up and down, you get hardly anything, and the game's pretty boring. Just lean forward and the game becomes worth it very quickly.
Sorry!: Democrat Edition
This variation that I created follows the same rules as regular Sorry! (click on picture above to remember these rules), except who moves and which pawns move are highly restricted based on Need. Plus, extra attention is paid on slowing down the person in the Lead.
Since the moves are pretty much dictated by the following rules, you can either play this variation with your friends, OR you can even play this solitaire--that is, one person playing all four players.
#1) Need and Lead are determined by each person's Success Score. The Success Score equals the sum of squares each pawn is away from "Start." A pawn on the square directly next to "Start" has a score of zero. The next square has a score of one. On the modern board, the next player's Start square is 15 squares away, so a pawn on that square has a score of 15. A pawn that has made it Home has the full score of 64. Since you have four pawns, add up all four individual scores to get the total Success Score. The max Success Score is 256, which means all four pawns have made it Home.
Need = the player with the lowest Success Score at the beginning of the turn. In case of tie, Need = the player whose pawn has the lowest individual score (that is, closest to Start). If that's still a tie, compare the second lowest individual scores, and so on. If still a tie, you can either choose the player who's had the most rotten luck so far in the game, or randomly choose the person in Need.
Lead = the player with the highest Success Score at the beginning of the turn. It's possible to have more than one player in the Lead (a tie). If a tie breaker is needed, Lead = the player whose pawn has the highest individual score (closest to Home). If that's still a tie, compare the second highest individual scores, and so on.
#2) At each turn, either the player in Need moves forward OR the player in Lead moves backward. (Clarification: turns do not pass around the board like normal. If a player is in a really bad way, they could move several times in a row until they are no longer in Need.)
#3a) On a forward-moving card, the player in Need first determines if it's possible to attack one of the Lead player's pawns and send them to Start. If so, then that move must be made. If there is more than one one choice of attack, then attack the pawn that is most in the lead.
#3b) Exception to an attack: At most one pawn of a person in Lead can be attacked. If an attack harms more than one pawn (such as landing on a Slide), or someone who is not in the Lead, then that move cannot be made.
#3c) If no attack on the Lead can be made, then the person in Need must move the pawn closest to Start. If that move is illegal (or an illegal attack), then the second closest pawn should be moved.
#3d) If there are no legal moves for the person in Need, then play reverts to the second person in lead, and so on to the fourth person (Lead). If the fourth person can't move, then draw the next card.
#4) The rest of the rules are card specific. Here's what you do with the "special" cards...
Card #1: The player that has the most number of pawns in Start will move his pawn to the square just outside of Start (remember that the score is still zero at this square). If there is a tie, the person most in Need gets to move his pawn out. If there's still a tie, consider if a Lead person can be attacked. If still a tie (such as beginning of the game) then randomly pick a player to move his pawn out. If no pawns can be moved out, then move a player forward one square (see rules 3a-3d).
Card #2: Same as Card #1. This player does not get a second turn, because ... well ... that wouldn't be fair. If no pawns can be moved out, then move a player forward two squares (see rules 3a-3d).
Card #4: The person in Lead will move his furthest out pawn back four spaces. Exceptions: if that pawn is at the end of a slide, and going back four causes the pawn to slide back to where it began, that's not good enough. The person in Lead needs to pay. So move back his second furthest out pawn instead. If moving backwards attacks another player, don't move that pawn. Under no circumstances can you be allowed to move backwards past Start, as that gives way too much of an advantage. No one should be allowed that big a break. If the person in Lead can't move back any pawns, then the second person in Lead moves.
Card #7: This is the Community Card. It must be split between all four players--one pawn each. Start with the person most in Need. If he catches up with the second person most in Need, then they share the balance of the 7 spaces, and so on until you run out of spaces. Give any extra leftover spaces to the person who was originally in Need.
Card #10: The person in Need moves. If he can attack one of the Lead person's pawns by moving backward one space (and there is no forward-ten-spaces capturing move), then that move must be made. Otherwise, move forward ten spaces (rules #3a-#3d).
Card #11: The person in Need can switch a pawn's place with one of the Lead person's pawns, using the following algorithm: First look at the Lead person's most advanced pawn. Go backwards around the board until you come across the first Need person's pawn. If switching the two pawns puts the person in Need in a better position and the person in Lead in a worse position, then switch those pawns. If not, then look at the next Need person's pawn (going backwards). If no legal switches can be made, look at the Lead person's second most advanced pawn, and so. If absolutely no legal switches exist, then the person in Need moves forward 11 spaces (rules #3a-#3d).
Sorry! Card: The person in Need will Sorry a Lead person's pawn using the following algorithm. Start at the square next to Start and move forward until you get to the first Lead person's pawn. Sorry that pawn. If the person in Need has no pawns in Start, then the second person in Need gets to go. In the rare occasion that the person in Lead is the only person who has a pawn in Start, he will forfeit his turn. He can afford it.
#5) If a situation occurs that has not been covered in rules #1-#4, then the players should confer with each other and determine which move would be the most equitable for the good of all players.
#6) Winning the game: Play continues until every player wins, OR everyone decides unanimously that they are fed up with the whole system and refuse to play anymore.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
2012 TV Fall Preview
The Fall Season is upon us. Schedules are set. Are you ready to happily lose hours a week watching the return of your favorite shows as well as some upcoming new shows? I'm a little excited.
However, it looks like I'll be watching less TV than I have in past years. With the cancellation of a couple of my regular shows, and slim sci-fi pickings in the upcoming shows, there just won't be as much for me to watch.
The biggest disappointment is FOX who cancelled their profitable "Terra Nova" just when it was starting to get interesting. And there's not even one good new show (that I'm interested in) to take its place. This may be the first time in a long time that I've seen FOX not provide even one new sci-fi show.
New shows I will try out this season...
Revolution on NBC (premiere: Sept. 17): This show explores what happens after all the lights go out all over the world. A mysterious EMP-like something knocks out everything, including batteries and engines, etc. The world's current governments fall apart, and people try to survive in a new world, and possibly even try to figure out how to turn the lights back on. This show looks interesting, especially with J. J. Abrams at the helm.
Last Resort on ABC (premiere: Sept. 27): A powerful nuclear submarine receives orders to annihilate Pakistan. The commander refuses and flees from his own government. Armed with nukes, this show looks like it could be a fun action/thriller ride.
The Neighbors on ABC (premiere: Sept. 26): A family moves in to a neighborhood filled with aliens. Evidently, critics are already panning this show. Yeah, it looks stupid, and it probably won't last more than five episodes, but it's sci-fi, and it does seem to have some funny bits. I'll give it one or two episodes to catch my interest.
Shows I'm passing on include:
666 Park Avenue (ABC): it looks like it could have some cool religious sci-fi elements, but it seems too centered around sexual desires. No thanks.
Arrow (CW): the telling of the Green Arrow might have caught my attention earlier, but after what Smallville became, I'm not interested.
Beauty and the Beast (CW): See my comment above concerning Smallville. Plus, this show conflicts with Person of Interest and The Office.
Returning shows I'm looking forward to (or currently running):
Alphas (SyFy - on now for a few more weeks)
Warehouse 13 (SyFy - on now for a few more weeks)
Grimm (NBC - on now - they started super early)
Doctor Who (BBC America - Sept. 8 - it's about time! Note that this is one week after the premiere in the UK - those buggers!)
The Office (NBC - Sept. 20 - this is their last season)
Haven (SyFy - Sept. 21 - if they don't delay it again)
Person of Interest (CBS - Sept. 27 - still a family favorite)
Fringe (FOX - Sept. 28 - their last season, and it looks like a doozy)
Once Upon a Time (ABC - Sept. 30 - now that everyone remembers who they are, will this show get dumb?)
The Simpsons (FOX - Sept. 30 - D'oh!)
The Walking Dead (AMC - Oct. 14 - Season 3 looks to be very good)
Touch (FOX - Oct. 26 - Hate the "science," but good stories)
Psych (USA - premiere sometime in the Fall)
Update (8/22/2012): Doctor Who has been moved up to Sept. 1 to be in synch with the UK. Yeah!
However, it looks like I'll be watching less TV than I have in past years. With the cancellation of a couple of my regular shows, and slim sci-fi pickings in the upcoming shows, there just won't be as much for me to watch.
The biggest disappointment is FOX who cancelled their profitable "Terra Nova" just when it was starting to get interesting. And there's not even one good new show (that I'm interested in) to take its place. This may be the first time in a long time that I've seen FOX not provide even one new sci-fi show.
New shows I will try out this season...
Revolution on NBC (premiere: Sept. 17): This show explores what happens after all the lights go out all over the world. A mysterious EMP-like something knocks out everything, including batteries and engines, etc. The world's current governments fall apart, and people try to survive in a new world, and possibly even try to figure out how to turn the lights back on. This show looks interesting, especially with J. J. Abrams at the helm.
Last Resort on ABC (premiere: Sept. 27): A powerful nuclear submarine receives orders to annihilate Pakistan. The commander refuses and flees from his own government. Armed with nukes, this show looks like it could be a fun action/thriller ride.
The Neighbors on ABC (premiere: Sept. 26): A family moves in to a neighborhood filled with aliens. Evidently, critics are already panning this show. Yeah, it looks stupid, and it probably won't last more than five episodes, but it's sci-fi, and it does seem to have some funny bits. I'll give it one or two episodes to catch my interest.
Shows I'm passing on include:
666 Park Avenue (ABC): it looks like it could have some cool religious sci-fi elements, but it seems too centered around sexual desires. No thanks.
Arrow (CW): the telling of the Green Arrow might have caught my attention earlier, but after what Smallville became, I'm not interested.
Beauty and the Beast (CW): See my comment above concerning Smallville. Plus, this show conflicts with Person of Interest and The Office.
Returning shows I'm looking forward to (or currently running):
Alphas (SyFy - on now for a few more weeks)
Warehouse 13 (SyFy - on now for a few more weeks)
Grimm (NBC - on now - they started super early)
Doctor Who (BBC America - Sept. 8 - it's about time! Note that this is one week after the premiere in the UK - those buggers!)
The Office (NBC - Sept. 20 - this is their last season)
Haven (SyFy - Sept. 21 - if they don't delay it again)
Person of Interest (CBS - Sept. 27 - still a family favorite)
Fringe (FOX - Sept. 28 - their last season, and it looks like a doozy)
Once Upon a Time (ABC - Sept. 30 - now that everyone remembers who they are, will this show get dumb?)
The Simpsons (FOX - Sept. 30 - D'oh!)
The Walking Dead (AMC - Oct. 14 - Season 3 looks to be very good)
Touch (FOX - Oct. 26 - Hate the "science," but good stories)
Psych (USA - premiere sometime in the Fall)
Update (8/22/2012): Doctor Who has been moved up to Sept. 1 to be in synch with the UK. Yeah!
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Total Recall (2012)
I caught this movie yesterday--yes, a little late, but I've been busy vacationing it up the past few weeks. I had to travel an extra 10 miles to the mall to find a theater showing it at the cheap 4:05 time slot. And when I walked into the theater at 4:00, I was the only one in the room. At first I was excited that I would be the only one watching a movie (never had that happen before), but in the last minute, a noisy family with kids came in, and then about two couples and one single. Dang!
Plus, it was in the theater down at the end where the speakers make a loud buzz every time the air conditioner comes on. And this movie is only at the beginning of its third week!
So, where are the fans? It turns out that they practically reject this remake. Since it's different, but not different enough, they hate it. But the movie itself (if you never saw the original) was still pretty good. It was, in my opinion, as good or better than I, Robot which has a similar feel and type of action. It's much like several of the book-adaptations I saw with my kids. With the exception of The Hunger Games and Harry Potter, my kids rejected several of the recent adaptation movies, while my wife and I, who hadn't read the books, actually enjoyed them. The most drastic example was The Last Airbender, an adaption of the TV cartoon Avatar, which we parents enjoyed until we actually watched the cartoon and came to hate the movie.
Funny how that works.
Well, I thoroughly enjoyed Total Recall (2012). It captures well the mood of cyberpunk, though not as well as Blade Runner. The movie's pace was excellent and left no room for any boring scenes. It was nice to see Colin Farrell play a likeable character for a change.
Was this movie better than the original? It's difficult to judge. You can see my review of the first movie here.
The first movie was an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's short story, "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale," which I have yet to read. The second movie was an an adaptation of the first movie, which in and of itself gives the first movie a big advantage.
The second movie removes what I call the R-rated distractions, which I consider to be a good thing. These are the trademark of Verhoeven. Think Robocop and Starship Troopers. Verhoeven has this knack of introducing funny lines and scenes, usually of a Rated R nature. They usually are successful in going for the laugh, but it's also usually distracting and comes across as looking very cheezy.
Funny thing is, the lack of these Verhoeven touches in the 2012 version is most likely why the fans are rejecting it. We are treated to one "tri-boobie" scene, which is an unfortunate bow to these touches. It's unfortunate because it's the only bow, and it really sticks out in the flow of the movie. In the original, we at least know she's a mutant. In the new movie, we're scratching our head--"What just happened here?"
But other than that one scene, this remake is a more non-cheezy "mature" movie free of those distractions. It has much more action. Also, there is more interplay between the characters. Plus, I think the movie does a slightly better job at creating the possibility of two different realities. The first movie shows too many scenes away from Quaid, thus locking down the "Mars is real" reality. The remake shows most everything from Quaid's point of view, so either reality could be true.
In the area of bad science, both movies have their fair share. In the remake, the whole "Fall" business is practically impossible. The shift in gravity would be gradual throughout the whole trip. And if it's in free fall, as one imdb user comments, the riders would experience weightlessness the whole trip. That same user comments that Great Britain and Australia aren't polar opposites. But it's only off by a few degrees. Eesh! Some of these nitpickers need to get a life. :)
If you're a Philip K. Dick fan, I recommend seeing this movie in the theater as soon as possible, because it doesn't look like it'll last much longer. It's a shame, but this movie deserves more than the rap it's getting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)