In the words of Kylo Ren "it's time to let the old things die". And in that spirit I think The Last Jedi might well be the last Star Wars film that I bother to go to the cinema for. Any others will go on my DVD rental list.
Spin-offs might tempt me back - I really enjoyed Rogue One - but the main saga is now just too broken to fix. I was mug enough to stick with it through the prequels, and Force Awakens was kind of fun, but Last Jedi is a giant leap backwards.
On the way out of the showing I went to, I heard a young man say to his friend "it wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't a good Star Wars film."
Perhaps what he meant was that if you don't expect any consistency between this film and any others, then you can enjoy it as a stand-alone movie.
The problem I had, was that I do care about how the saga works overall. And this instalment makes no sense. I read that Mark Hamill was unhappy about how Luke was written in this film and I can see why. That wasn't Luke.
The whole film looks like someone made a big list of Star Wars memes and threw them together to keep all the "fans" happy... Millennium Falcon flying along a narrow passage, turning randomly and just making it as Tie Fighters chase but crash one by one... check... Yoda saying something philosophical... check... next?
The new characters introduced in Force Awakens either hardly get developed at all, or just go off in strange directions.
For example, Captain Phasma. Who the hell was she? Why did she swan around in that dumb shiny suit? And how did she get to be a senior soldier when she can't even fight off one guy? I guess we'll never know.
All of which is trivial compared to the questions around Snoke. Where did he come from, how did he get so powerful so quickly, how did he exert influence over Ben Solo? I was really hoping that the story would start to answer some of those questions and give us some clues about how he might be defeated. But instead we just get to meet him early on and he gets eliminated by a cheap trick. Really? He goes from super powerful to moron in 5 minutes. He can disable Rey at will, but Kylo Ren (who is weaker than Rey) toasts him? Shockingly weak plot mistake.
So now we are supposed to accept Kylo 'Cry Baby' Ren as the new major power in the galaxy? It's a good job that there are only about 9 rebels left, otherwise he would be in trouble.
I was actually bored by the end of this film. I never thought I would say that about a Star Wars film. And where can it go now? There is only Ren and Rey left... maybe they will train up an entire new army each by the next movie... would be as believable as this last effort.
One final thing. I kept expecting Leia to die too. But she didn't. So either Disney are going to have to get permission to CGI her for the next film (which they previously said they would not do) or she is going to have a nasty accident off camera... which would be a shameful way to end a great character.
I used to love Star Wars, but that was before The Last Jedi, before the dark times...
Sunday 24 December 2017
Thursday 21 December 2017
Jessica Jones - season 1 - x2
With a second season of Jessica Jones on the way I decided to watch the first couple of episodes again... and ended up watching the whole series.
I'd remembered roughly what happened, but that didn't detract from a second viewing at all. If anything I probably enjoyed it more, because I wasn't endlessly speculating about what might happen and just enjoyed what was there.
The way that the villain is introduced so slowly is one of the highlights of the writing. The uncertainty of whether the Purple Man has really returned, combined with the general disbelief of the people around Jessica, and Jessica's fearful recollection of the past, all ratchet up the tension.
It's a good job that they got an actor as good as David Tenant to play Killgrave. Because by the time you actually see him he needs to be properly creepy... and he is, bigtime. (even for an Englishman like me, who normally chuckles at the American stereotyping of the English villain ... BTW you know Tenant is Scottish, right?)
Krysten Ritter is perfectly cast as Jones. She is beautiful ... in that gothic way that makes you think she could quite easily punch you in the mouth if you say the wrong thing. Maybe that's just me. I also liked the contrast with her "sister" figure Trish - the more conventionally "pretty" blonde, who turns out to be more violent given half a chance.
Opening doors by breaking the lock never gets old. The only effects that seem cheep are the jumps, which are mercifully rare, because they are a bit unintentionally comical.
Luke Cage is in it more than I remembered. I probably wont watch his season 1 again (the first half was good but it quickly ran out of steam) and definitely wont watch any more Iron Fist (apart from in The Defenders) as he is just annoyingly stupid.
But I digress. Jessica Jones. One thing I got again was the sense of devastation that all the victims of Killgrave felt. Some of them had been made to do terrible things; and even though they wanted to believe that they had no choice, there always seemed to be remorse and doubt that they weren't actually to blame. And a terrible fear that he might control them again.
Many people fear losing control. Losing control and being aware at the same time would be horrific. This show portrays that very well.
A new question that popped up on second viewing was why did Kevin become so nasty? This one is hard to answer, because Killgrave puts on an act for Jessica which is hard to penetrate. While he is trying to win her, you don't know if he genuinely sees the light during the hostage scene, or if he is just saying what he thinks she wants to here.
There is a great example of his wickedness when he is being hassled by a guy selling magazines in the park. Killgrave is looking thru the mags and the guy wants to know if he is going to buy one. Instead of just telling the guy to be quiet he makes him throw a cup of hot coffee into his own face.
The skill of the writers is to just give you enough doubt that Kevin is really bad; then you are all the more horrified when he does something else terrible.
So even though I knew the ending. Taking the journey to it a second time was just as interesting as the first.
I'd remembered roughly what happened, but that didn't detract from a second viewing at all. If anything I probably enjoyed it more, because I wasn't endlessly speculating about what might happen and just enjoyed what was there.
The way that the villain is introduced so slowly is one of the highlights of the writing. The uncertainty of whether the Purple Man has really returned, combined with the general disbelief of the people around Jessica, and Jessica's fearful recollection of the past, all ratchet up the tension.
It's a good job that they got an actor as good as David Tenant to play Killgrave. Because by the time you actually see him he needs to be properly creepy... and he is, bigtime. (even for an Englishman like me, who normally chuckles at the American stereotyping of the English villain ... BTW you know Tenant is Scottish, right?)
Krysten Ritter is perfectly cast as Jones. She is beautiful ... in that gothic way that makes you think she could quite easily punch you in the mouth if you say the wrong thing. Maybe that's just me. I also liked the contrast with her "sister" figure Trish - the more conventionally "pretty" blonde, who turns out to be more violent given half a chance.
Opening doors by breaking the lock never gets old. The only effects that seem cheep are the jumps, which are mercifully rare, because they are a bit unintentionally comical.
Luke Cage is in it more than I remembered. I probably wont watch his season 1 again (the first half was good but it quickly ran out of steam) and definitely wont watch any more Iron Fist (apart from in The Defenders) as he is just annoyingly stupid.
But I digress. Jessica Jones. One thing I got again was the sense of devastation that all the victims of Killgrave felt. Some of them had been made to do terrible things; and even though they wanted to believe that they had no choice, there always seemed to be remorse and doubt that they weren't actually to blame. And a terrible fear that he might control them again.
Many people fear losing control. Losing control and being aware at the same time would be horrific. This show portrays that very well.
A new question that popped up on second viewing was why did Kevin become so nasty? This one is hard to answer, because Killgrave puts on an act for Jessica which is hard to penetrate. While he is trying to win her, you don't know if he genuinely sees the light during the hostage scene, or if he is just saying what he thinks she wants to here.
There is a great example of his wickedness when he is being hassled by a guy selling magazines in the park. Killgrave is looking thru the mags and the guy wants to know if he is going to buy one. Instead of just telling the guy to be quiet he makes him throw a cup of hot coffee into his own face.
The skill of the writers is to just give you enough doubt that Kevin is really bad; then you are all the more horrified when he does something else terrible.
So even though I knew the ending. Taking the journey to it a second time was just as interesting as the first.
Tuesday 19 December 2017
Fantastic Four (2015)
I didn't write about this film when it came out, because there was so much hate for it at the time that I thought I must have seen a different film from everyone else.
I liked it.
I've seen it 4 or 5 times on Blu-ray since; and I still like it.
There are some reasons why I think many people hated it. Any one of these reasons might put some people off... all of them together hit a critical mass (pun intended).
1) It is very dark
All of the main characters start off pretty unhappy. Reed's family don't understand him - so much so that he wishes he were adopted to explain why he doesn't love them. Ben's family is abusive. Sue's family were presumably massacred in Kosovo. Johnny has a bad relationship with his father - and his mother is never mentioned.
If that wasn't enough, Victor is just one big heap of no fun. Clearly he has a thing for Sue, but we don't know any details of their history, if any, just that he is jealous of Reed when he perceives a relationship developing. And it's not surprising that given the power and the means, he decides to destroy the whole of Earth and live by himself on Planet Zero. You can't get much darker than that.
2) The humour is very dry
A dark film needs some humour to give points of respite. There is plenty of humour in Fantastic Four, but it is very dry and plenty of people, or even entire cultures, might well miss it.
I once tried to explain an English joke to someone from Finland. Unsuccessfully. So I am not going to try and analyse the humour of this film here. You are just going to have to accept that at least one person (me) thought that there were funny parts in this film...
3) Another origin story
At the time this movie came out there was a general antipathy for origin stories. Particularly re-booted origin stories. Marvel Studios had moved on to the next level, as had Fox with the X-men, and even Sony had realised that their next Spiderman film couldn't start again with the origin story.
The origin of the Fantastic Four is so well known that you don't need to tell it again. Even with a different slant. Something happened to give them their powers. What happens next is the interesting part. Sadly we will never find out where this arc goes, as the movie sank so badly that sequels are impossible.
4) A smart woman
Now we are getting to the controversial issues. Unlike the 2005 version, Sue Storm is a strong, smart, independent woman. Remember how she had to take off her clothes to escape the bridge; or how she fretted about her wedding arrangements in the sequel? That Sue was a simple, do as you are told, American gal.
The 2015 version is more equal to Reed than any other man (bar Victor). She plays a key part in the story by finding Reed when everyone else has failed for a year. She isn't just a love interest for Reed - in fact they don't even progress beyond friendship in this movie. And she isn't American...
Some people find smart women threatening.
5) A black man
Perhaps the biggest controversy around this movie was the casting of a black man as Johnny Storm. It was a brave move. If the rest of the movie had been exactly what the masses wanted, then you might, just might, have pulled it off.
But anything out of place gives someone who is consciously, or unconsciously, racist a chance to say "It was bad because of XYZ" when they mean "How can Johnny be black?"
Many people are racists.
6) A mean Ben Grimm
It is quite striking how awesome The Thing is in this film. And how angry he is with Reed, not just for the accident, but for the abandonment afterwards. That seemed very realistic to me.
Compare that with the 2005 version where they tried to convey the same thing, but failed by depicting The Thing as a comedy figure for cheap laughs. Even worse, they turned him back into Ben Grimm so that he could nobly choose to turn back into The Thing to save the day - what rubbish.
7) Josh Trank's tweet
A day before the release, director Josh Trank tweeted "A year ago I had a fantastic version of this. And it would've received great reviews. You'll probably never see it. That's reality though."
We will probably never know if the studio interference messed up the movie, or if some sanity was restored to a flawed project. Either way, dissing your own movie the day before it is released seems petulant at best.
So there you have it. Fantastic Four is a good bit of entertainment, I thought, and an interesting treatment of the well known characters. Unfortunately there are too many reasons for people to not like it.
I remember the time when all superhero films were terrible, because CGI did not exist and disbelief can only be suspended so far. Maybe that makes me much more tolerant of the flaws in today's movies.
I liked it.
I've seen it 4 or 5 times on Blu-ray since; and I still like it.
There are some reasons why I think many people hated it. Any one of these reasons might put some people off... all of them together hit a critical mass (pun intended).
1) It is very dark
All of the main characters start off pretty unhappy. Reed's family don't understand him - so much so that he wishes he were adopted to explain why he doesn't love them. Ben's family is abusive. Sue's family were presumably massacred in Kosovo. Johnny has a bad relationship with his father - and his mother is never mentioned.
If that wasn't enough, Victor is just one big heap of no fun. Clearly he has a thing for Sue, but we don't know any details of their history, if any, just that he is jealous of Reed when he perceives a relationship developing. And it's not surprising that given the power and the means, he decides to destroy the whole of Earth and live by himself on Planet Zero. You can't get much darker than that.
2) The humour is very dry
A dark film needs some humour to give points of respite. There is plenty of humour in Fantastic Four, but it is very dry and plenty of people, or even entire cultures, might well miss it.
I once tried to explain an English joke to someone from Finland. Unsuccessfully. So I am not going to try and analyse the humour of this film here. You are just going to have to accept that at least one person (me) thought that there were funny parts in this film...
3) Another origin story
At the time this movie came out there was a general antipathy for origin stories. Particularly re-booted origin stories. Marvel Studios had moved on to the next level, as had Fox with the X-men, and even Sony had realised that their next Spiderman film couldn't start again with the origin story.
The origin of the Fantastic Four is so well known that you don't need to tell it again. Even with a different slant. Something happened to give them their powers. What happens next is the interesting part. Sadly we will never find out where this arc goes, as the movie sank so badly that sequels are impossible.
4) A smart woman
Now we are getting to the controversial issues. Unlike the 2005 version, Sue Storm is a strong, smart, independent woman. Remember how she had to take off her clothes to escape the bridge; or how she fretted about her wedding arrangements in the sequel? That Sue was a simple, do as you are told, American gal.
The 2015 version is more equal to Reed than any other man (bar Victor). She plays a key part in the story by finding Reed when everyone else has failed for a year. She isn't just a love interest for Reed - in fact they don't even progress beyond friendship in this movie. And she isn't American...
Some people find smart women threatening.
5) A black man
Perhaps the biggest controversy around this movie was the casting of a black man as Johnny Storm. It was a brave move. If the rest of the movie had been exactly what the masses wanted, then you might, just might, have pulled it off.
But anything out of place gives someone who is consciously, or unconsciously, racist a chance to say "It was bad because of XYZ" when they mean "How can Johnny be black?"
Many people are racists.
6) A mean Ben Grimm
It is quite striking how awesome The Thing is in this film. And how angry he is with Reed, not just for the accident, but for the abandonment afterwards. That seemed very realistic to me.
Compare that with the 2005 version where they tried to convey the same thing, but failed by depicting The Thing as a comedy figure for cheap laughs. Even worse, they turned him back into Ben Grimm so that he could nobly choose to turn back into The Thing to save the day - what rubbish.
7) Josh Trank's tweet
A day before the release, director Josh Trank tweeted "A year ago I had a fantastic version of this. And it would've received great reviews. You'll probably never see it. That's reality though."
We will probably never know if the studio interference messed up the movie, or if some sanity was restored to a flawed project. Either way, dissing your own movie the day before it is released seems petulant at best.
So there you have it. Fantastic Four is a good bit of entertainment, I thought, and an interesting treatment of the well known characters. Unfortunately there are too many reasons for people to not like it.
I remember the time when all superhero films were terrible, because CGI did not exist and disbelief can only be suspended so far. Maybe that makes me much more tolerant of the flaws in today's movies.
Monday 11 December 2017
Stranger Things - season 1
After I watched Stranger on Netflix (a brilliant Korean thriller, check it out) I googled around to see what other people thought of it. But I couldn't find much because all my searches for Stranger returned results for Stranger Things.
Since the tone of the reviews was almost universally positive, I thought I would give it a go.
It's quite entertaining. Mainly because of the "spot which movie they are copying now" game that you can play while watching. I mean, it starts off as ET and finishes with Carrie vs Alien. With a bunch of others in the middle.
All the same, it's joined together quite well and I enjoyed it for the most part. So as long as no-one tries to acclaim it's originality or hail it as a work of genius... then I'm happy to take it as a nice bit of fluffy entertainment.
Since the tone of the reviews was almost universally positive, I thought I would give it a go.
It's quite entertaining. Mainly because of the "spot which movie they are copying now" game that you can play while watching. I mean, it starts off as ET and finishes with Carrie vs Alien. With a bunch of others in the middle.
All the same, it's joined together quite well and I enjoyed it for the most part. So as long as no-one tries to acclaim it's originality or hail it as a work of genius... then I'm happy to take it as a nice bit of fluffy entertainment.
Wednesday 6 December 2017
The Punisher
I think that The Punisher on Netflix is a pretty good treatment of the character. He's not someone that I am an expert on - he popped up in several Spiderman comics when I was a regular reader in the 1970s and 80s; and of course he appears in the Civil War comics - I tend to think of him as the guy who kills people.
That's a tricky brief. You can't run a whole season on the premise of Frank Castle going round killing people. And you also can't change the character to make him a nice guy who's just been unlucky.
The Punisher isn't a nice guy. He resolves issues by killing people. He makes himself judge, jury and executioner. That is the character.
So I wasn't expecting the series to be that great. Even though he was well done in Daredevil Season 2. I thought that a whole series of his own might be too much.
But I think Marvel have really pulled this off well. The balance between "justified" killings and wanton violence is about right, I think. As is the balance between "pity" for Frank because of his back-story and "fear" of him as a soul that lost itself to violence long before his family were murdered.
The surrounding story weaves nicely between past and present. Episode 10 is a classic example of reshowing a simple scene from several perspectives out-of-order and revealing a little more each time. Something of a microcosm of the whole season.
In terms of plot there aren't many surprises. You can see most of the turns coming, although there are a few "wow" moments which stand out. It is really the quality of the character development that shines, supported by just enough action to keep you on edge.
Perhaps the only thing I didn't like was the ending. I found myself thinking "no, not like that" as the last scenes played out. It felt quite final to me. Of course there is always a way back for a second season... and he may reappear in other Marvel shows... but it seemed like a definite attempt to say "OK, we're done now".
That's a tricky brief. You can't run a whole season on the premise of Frank Castle going round killing people. And you also can't change the character to make him a nice guy who's just been unlucky.
The Punisher isn't a nice guy. He resolves issues by killing people. He makes himself judge, jury and executioner. That is the character.
So I wasn't expecting the series to be that great. Even though he was well done in Daredevil Season 2. I thought that a whole series of his own might be too much.
But I think Marvel have really pulled this off well. The balance between "justified" killings and wanton violence is about right, I think. As is the balance between "pity" for Frank because of his back-story and "fear" of him as a soul that lost itself to violence long before his family were murdered.
The surrounding story weaves nicely between past and present. Episode 10 is a classic example of reshowing a simple scene from several perspectives out-of-order and revealing a little more each time. Something of a microcosm of the whole season.
In terms of plot there aren't many surprises. You can see most of the turns coming, although there are a few "wow" moments which stand out. It is really the quality of the character development that shines, supported by just enough action to keep you on edge.
Perhaps the only thing I didn't like was the ending. I found myself thinking "no, not like that" as the last scenes played out. It felt quite final to me. Of course there is always a way back for a second season... and he may reappear in other Marvel shows... but it seemed like a definite attempt to say "OK, we're done now".
Wednesday 29 November 2017
Legion - season 1 - part 1
I am half way through Legion ... which isn't on Netflix ... or TV ... so I am renting it on disc from Cinema Paradiso.
One disk = 4 episodes = half of season 1.
Yes, I am stalling. I don't know what to say about it. I don't know if I like it or not. It is weird. But good weird, or bad weird?
I'm still left guessing that the main guy (from Downton Abbey) is going to be called Legion at some point? I don't think I have heard the word uttered once yet. Which is odd. Half way through the season and the title doesn't actually mean anything, yet?
I could look it up. But then I would probably find spoilers and I would rather have some surprises / suspense to look forward to.
The atmosphere is good. There is intrigue. But the few action sequences, so far, have been a bit rubbish.
So I don't know where we are going here. Will the early promise fizzle out like a dud firework... or explode just after you though it was done?
I will watch the second disk. With some apprehension. And fingers crossed for a big finish.
One disk = 4 episodes = half of season 1.
Yes, I am stalling. I don't know what to say about it. I don't know if I like it or not. It is weird. But good weird, or bad weird?
I'm still left guessing that the main guy (from Downton Abbey) is going to be called Legion at some point? I don't think I have heard the word uttered once yet. Which is odd. Half way through the season and the title doesn't actually mean anything, yet?
I could look it up. But then I would probably find spoilers and I would rather have some surprises / suspense to look forward to.
The atmosphere is good. There is intrigue. But the few action sequences, so far, have been a bit rubbish.
So I don't know where we are going here. Will the early promise fizzle out like a dud firework... or explode just after you though it was done?
I will watch the second disk. With some apprehension. And fingers crossed for a big finish.
Saturday 18 November 2017
Suicide Squad is good
I heard it again yesterday from a critic reviewing Justice League. Blah blah blah "and the derisable Suicide Squad" blah blah blah.
Lazy, lazy, lazy. Some people still think it is cool to slam SS. It won an Oscar? Oh woe; the world is ending; this is as bad as Trump winning president.
Get over yourself, or fuck off back to Twitter where no-one is listening.
DC has many problems with its films. Primarily because there are many good Marvel films and they are trying to catch up... without looking like they are copying someone else's homework.
DC fans are different from Marvel fans. I think Suicide Squad is the most Marvel-like film that DC have done... which is a problem? I don't get it.
Marvel's "secret" is simple. It's a balance between light and dark, humour and action. All the DC films barring Suicide Squad have got that terribly wrong (with the exception of The Dark Knight, which can carry the excessive darkness by playing two differently dark characters, Batman and Joker, against each other).
I think there is another factor which whipped up the anti-SS feelings in the echo chambers of social media. Sex. The character Harley Quinn is overtly sexual and that is a problem for critics. Female critics have to decide if the film is exploiting women and using the character primarily as a sex object. Male critics have to do the same... but if they "get it wrong" then they are going to be lambasted as sexist pigs.
If the critics want to play safe then they can just pan the film for anything else they can think of and dodge the sex issue entirely. That's what a lot of them did. They did the same with Sucker Punch, which was so sexy (a major point of the film) that I could almost see the cold sweats on the male critics as they thought "I can't possibly give this a good review without being crucified by every woman I know".
And social media is inherently negative. You only have to look on Twitter for a few seconds to see that. People love to get their teeth into slagging something off. Take a few genuine fans who have legitimate gripes about how the source material has been translated, some critics desperate to not mention sex, press a few buttons and you have a meme that Suicide Squad is the worst film ever made.
Suicide Squad is not a terrible film. It's not even a bad film. I have seen a lot of terrible films and even more bad films. On balance, based on the film itself and not what other people say about it, I think it is actually quite good.
Lazy, lazy, lazy. Some people still think it is cool to slam SS. It won an Oscar? Oh woe; the world is ending; this is as bad as Trump winning president.
Get over yourself, or fuck off back to Twitter where no-one is listening.
DC has many problems with its films. Primarily because there are many good Marvel films and they are trying to catch up... without looking like they are copying someone else's homework.
DC fans are different from Marvel fans. I think Suicide Squad is the most Marvel-like film that DC have done... which is a problem? I don't get it.
Marvel's "secret" is simple. It's a balance between light and dark, humour and action. All the DC films barring Suicide Squad have got that terribly wrong (with the exception of The Dark Knight, which can carry the excessive darkness by playing two differently dark characters, Batman and Joker, against each other).
I think there is another factor which whipped up the anti-SS feelings in the echo chambers of social media. Sex. The character Harley Quinn is overtly sexual and that is a problem for critics. Female critics have to decide if the film is exploiting women and using the character primarily as a sex object. Male critics have to do the same... but if they "get it wrong" then they are going to be lambasted as sexist pigs.
If the critics want to play safe then they can just pan the film for anything else they can think of and dodge the sex issue entirely. That's what a lot of them did. They did the same with Sucker Punch, which was so sexy (a major point of the film) that I could almost see the cold sweats on the male critics as they thought "I can't possibly give this a good review without being crucified by every woman I know".
And social media is inherently negative. You only have to look on Twitter for a few seconds to see that. People love to get their teeth into slagging something off. Take a few genuine fans who have legitimate gripes about how the source material has been translated, some critics desperate to not mention sex, press a few buttons and you have a meme that Suicide Squad is the worst film ever made.
Suicide Squad is not a terrible film. It's not even a bad film. I have seen a lot of terrible films and even more bad films. On balance, based on the film itself and not what other people say about it, I think it is actually quite good.
Saturday 11 November 2017
Stranger - season 1
I really hope that there are more seasons of Stranger, because I really enjoyed it.
Probably the best TV detective drama I have seen since The Bridge. And it reminded me a lot of The Bridge at times, since it has a socially detached main character who teams up with his "opposite" to solve the crimes.
The plot is clever, with suspicion switching from character to character and back again. And the acting is great; particularly from the leads.
One thing I like about foreign language detective dramas is that you cannot look away for a second, otherwise you might miss something important. That makes the whole experience very immersive. And also you notice things that you might not if it were in English - the cultural details of Korean society were there to see - all that bowing and apologising.
The episodes (16 of them) are quite long too, which also drags you in. I think most of the episodes were just over an hour long, and the finale was nearly 90 minutes.
The last 20 minutes of the finale sets us up nicely for a second season. So let's hope that we don't have to wait too long for it.
Probably the best TV detective drama I have seen since The Bridge. And it reminded me a lot of The Bridge at times, since it has a socially detached main character who teams up with his "opposite" to solve the crimes.
The plot is clever, with suspicion switching from character to character and back again. And the acting is great; particularly from the leads.
One thing I like about foreign language detective dramas is that you cannot look away for a second, otherwise you might miss something important. That makes the whole experience very immersive. And also you notice things that you might not if it were in English - the cultural details of Korean society were there to see - all that bowing and apologising.
The episodes (16 of them) are quite long too, which also drags you in. I think most of the episodes were just over an hour long, and the finale was nearly 90 minutes.
The last 20 minutes of the finale sets us up nicely for a second season. So let's hope that we don't have to wait too long for it.
Thursday 26 October 2017
Experts know stuff that you don't
Michael Gove famously said during the EU referendum campaign that "we are fed up with experts". This from a man whose only qualification for being Education Secretary was that he went to school.
At the time it seemed laughable, but after the election of Trump I now realise how pernicious a concept it really is. Think about it for a moment: if you are told that it is OK not to trust experts, then who do you trust? Your "gut instinct" based on your own limited experience? Or the politicians telling you that experts are wrong and they are right?
Nowhere is the contrast between experts and lay-people more obvious than in the TV shows The Great British Bake Off and Strictly Come Dancing.
In the Bake Off there are 2 judges. They set the challenges, they taste the bakes, they choose a winner. Simple. Who better to decide the winner of a baking contest than the only 2 people who have tasted the results? And yet, look at the outrage on social media when people's favourite baker gets eliminated from the show. People actually stop watching (or say they do) because they disagree with the judges decisions. People who have not tasted the results... and probably don't even bake themselves at all.
On Strictly it is different. There is a panel of judges who have some influence
on the result, but ultimately the winner is decided by a public vote. The hosts actually tell you to "vote for your favourite" if you want to keep them in. So it is not a dancing competition as such, it is a popularity contest. In contrast with the Bake Off, my mother actually stopped watching Strictly because the best dancer didn't win... she hated the fact that the public vote trumped the judges.
Even worse; on Strictly the studio audience actually boo judges who make critical comments about dancers they like; and cheer judges who say nice things.
So in our popular culture there is an atmosphere that experts are at odds with the public and that public opinion, democracy, must win out.
Why? Because people are lazy. If you see something you don't agree with, then it is easier to ignore it or label it "fake news" than to check its accuracy. Experts don't always agree, so it is easier to ignore them, or pick the one you instinctively agree with, than to weigh up the different arguments and come to an informed opinion.
This is an area where mainstream media like the BBC are letting the public down. Instead of pandering to the 8 second attention span with shorter and shorter pieces, repeated over and over again. They should be offering an alternative to the intellectual deserts of social media.
Examine the experts. Become meta-experts if you like. Help the non-experts of the public to explore the options in as neutral a way as possible.
Worry less about politics and focus on facts. Lets stop reporting people's opinions as news. I really don't care what anyone says on Twitter.
People get stuck in social media bubbles that feed their own prejudices back at them in amplified form. It is toxic. But most people realise this and would like something better... at least some of the time.
Experts are not people who seek to control you. They are people who have worked and studied in a subject for a long time and understand it better than most people. Why would I think I know best on anything relating to economics or medicine or science or agriculture? I know a few things... but nothing about those subjects.
Michael Gove is a back-stabbing manipulating creep who shouldn't be in a position to make decisions over anyone's life. Let's deliver the ultimate smack down by learning to trust experts again.
At the time it seemed laughable, but after the election of Trump I now realise how pernicious a concept it really is. Think about it for a moment: if you are told that it is OK not to trust experts, then who do you trust? Your "gut instinct" based on your own limited experience? Or the politicians telling you that experts are wrong and they are right?
Nowhere is the contrast between experts and lay-people more obvious than in the TV shows The Great British Bake Off and Strictly Come Dancing.
In the Bake Off there are 2 judges. They set the challenges, they taste the bakes, they choose a winner. Simple. Who better to decide the winner of a baking contest than the only 2 people who have tasted the results? And yet, look at the outrage on social media when people's favourite baker gets eliminated from the show. People actually stop watching (or say they do) because they disagree with the judges decisions. People who have not tasted the results... and probably don't even bake themselves at all.
On Strictly it is different. There is a panel of judges who have some influence
on the result, but ultimately the winner is decided by a public vote. The hosts actually tell you to "vote for your favourite" if you want to keep them in. So it is not a dancing competition as such, it is a popularity contest. In contrast with the Bake Off, my mother actually stopped watching Strictly because the best dancer didn't win... she hated the fact that the public vote trumped the judges.
Even worse; on Strictly the studio audience actually boo judges who make critical comments about dancers they like; and cheer judges who say nice things.
So in our popular culture there is an atmosphere that experts are at odds with the public and that public opinion, democracy, must win out.
Why? Because people are lazy. If you see something you don't agree with, then it is easier to ignore it or label it "fake news" than to check its accuracy. Experts don't always agree, so it is easier to ignore them, or pick the one you instinctively agree with, than to weigh up the different arguments and come to an informed opinion.
This is an area where mainstream media like the BBC are letting the public down. Instead of pandering to the 8 second attention span with shorter and shorter pieces, repeated over and over again. They should be offering an alternative to the intellectual deserts of social media.
Examine the experts. Become meta-experts if you like. Help the non-experts of the public to explore the options in as neutral a way as possible.
Worry less about politics and focus on facts. Lets stop reporting people's opinions as news. I really don't care what anyone says on Twitter.
People get stuck in social media bubbles that feed their own prejudices back at them in amplified form. It is toxic. But most people realise this and would like something better... at least some of the time.
Experts are not people who seek to control you. They are people who have worked and studied in a subject for a long time and understand it better than most people. Why would I think I know best on anything relating to economics or medicine or science or agriculture? I know a few things... but nothing about those subjects.
Michael Gove is a back-stabbing manipulating creep who shouldn't be in a position to make decisions over anyone's life. Let's deliver the ultimate smack down by learning to trust experts again.
Monday 23 October 2017
Brexit is as brexit does
I am sick of hearing politicians bickering about Brexit. The media love a scrap. Especially one where there aren't many public facts that require leg-work to check. So expect months and months more of it.
People talk as if "the deal" for 2019 is going to be the EU / UK relationship set in stone forever. It isn't. Our relationship with other countries has evolved over at least a thousand years; and will continue to evolve for many more decades at least ... until Amazon, Facebook and Google own everything and nation states become irrelevant.
I would rather remain in the EU. But clearly that can't happen now, since we have already given notice (article 50) and there is no mechanism to cancel. If we did try to re-apply to the EU do you think they would let us back in? It would require a unanimous vote of the 27 ... so it only takes one to hold a grudge ... and France really took some convincing to let is in in the first place.
So we are leaving. People need to accept that and move on. We aren't going to make a good start out there on our own if half the population keep griping about the referendum for the next 20 years. "This is all because of Brexit" might be true, but you can't turn back the clock, and every journey has to start from where you are, not where you would like to be.
There has been a conflict in Britain for decades about whether we should be more like America or more like Europe. That's because we have unique ties to both of those continents. The people pushing for Hard Brexit are free market zealots who believe in a small state and a winner-takes-all society - that's because they already won, and want their families to keep winning.
Everyone else is either arguing for No Brexit or just slagging off the Hard Brexit people as stupid. They aren't stupid, they have a plan. What is a better plan? Where is the alternative vision? By the next election we will be out of the EU. If the opposition parties don't have a clear alternative to offer the people (52% of which wanted to be out) then we will be stuck on a path to Americanisation.
I really don't want that.
People talk as if "the deal" for 2019 is going to be the EU / UK relationship set in stone forever. It isn't. Our relationship with other countries has evolved over at least a thousand years; and will continue to evolve for many more decades at least ... until Amazon, Facebook and Google own everything and nation states become irrelevant.
I would rather remain in the EU. But clearly that can't happen now, since we have already given notice (article 50) and there is no mechanism to cancel. If we did try to re-apply to the EU do you think they would let us back in? It would require a unanimous vote of the 27 ... so it only takes one to hold a grudge ... and France really took some convincing to let is in in the first place.
So we are leaving. People need to accept that and move on. We aren't going to make a good start out there on our own if half the population keep griping about the referendum for the next 20 years. "This is all because of Brexit" might be true, but you can't turn back the clock, and every journey has to start from where you are, not where you would like to be.
There has been a conflict in Britain for decades about whether we should be more like America or more like Europe. That's because we have unique ties to both of those continents. The people pushing for Hard Brexit are free market zealots who believe in a small state and a winner-takes-all society - that's because they already won, and want their families to keep winning.
Everyone else is either arguing for No Brexit or just slagging off the Hard Brexit people as stupid. They aren't stupid, they have a plan. What is a better plan? Where is the alternative vision? By the next election we will be out of the EU. If the opposition parties don't have a clear alternative to offer the people (52% of which wanted to be out) then we will be stuck on a path to Americanisation.
I really don't want that.
Sunday 22 October 2017
Xenophobia is a symptom not a disease
There are quite a few people living in my home town that my mother would call Johnny Foreigners (*) if she were still alive. Being an affluent place, they are almost all either students, self-employed or people with jobs. In other words, they all make a net contribution to the community.
I know this. I am a mostly rational person.
And yet there are times when I feel uncomfortable with them around me. I think that is called xenophobia.
Yesterday I was walking along and there were 4 young men approaching from the other direction. This was fine until I could hear that they were talking in a foreign language. Not just a language I cannot speak; a language I could not even identify. Suddenly I felt threatened. For just a moment.
So it was their language, not their appearance.
Actually, it was probably their gender too. Because previously I have noticed that when there are women walking near me talking a foreign language, I don't feel threatened in the same way. I feel alienated. Like I don't fit in... in my home town.
It was that last point that got me thinking. I hardly ever talk to my neighbours. When I do, I kind of get the impression that they are just being polite and would rather be doing something else.
So people talking foreign languages around me are not threatening my sense of community. Instead they are making me realise that I don't really have a community to be part of.
Am I alone in this? Is the anti-immigrant (xenophobic) sentiment stoked by hate publications like the D@ily M@il, and interfering morons like Donald Trump, really a symptom of the breakdown of community in the UK?
I think it could be a factor.
People seem to be spending more and more time (via their phones) with their family and close friends. And consequently less and less time with the people who live nearby.
Hell. I don't think I even know the names of the people who live more than 2 doors away from me. That is shocking, isn't it? If I went and knocked on their door they would probably think I was being weird... or after something.
How did this happen, and how can we fix it?
The next time you find yourself thinking something negative about a foreigner, ask yourself if you ought to just try being a bit more friendly yourself!
(* did people with that attitude always assume foreigners were male?)
I know this. I am a mostly rational person.
And yet there are times when I feel uncomfortable with them around me. I think that is called xenophobia.
Yesterday I was walking along and there were 4 young men approaching from the other direction. This was fine until I could hear that they were talking in a foreign language. Not just a language I cannot speak; a language I could not even identify. Suddenly I felt threatened. For just a moment.
So it was their language, not their appearance.
Actually, it was probably their gender too. Because previously I have noticed that when there are women walking near me talking a foreign language, I don't feel threatened in the same way. I feel alienated. Like I don't fit in... in my home town.
It was that last point that got me thinking. I hardly ever talk to my neighbours. When I do, I kind of get the impression that they are just being polite and would rather be doing something else.
So people talking foreign languages around me are not threatening my sense of community. Instead they are making me realise that I don't really have a community to be part of.
Am I alone in this? Is the anti-immigrant (xenophobic) sentiment stoked by hate publications like the D@ily M@il, and interfering morons like Donald Trump, really a symptom of the breakdown of community in the UK?
I think it could be a factor.
People seem to be spending more and more time (via their phones) with their family and close friends. And consequently less and less time with the people who live nearby.
Hell. I don't think I even know the names of the people who live more than 2 doors away from me. That is shocking, isn't it? If I went and knocked on their door they would probably think I was being weird... or after something.
How did this happen, and how can we fix it?
The next time you find yourself thinking something negative about a foreigner, ask yourself if you ought to just try being a bit more friendly yourself!
(* did people with that attitude always assume foreigners were male?)
Saturday 14 October 2017
My cat died
She was nearly 12 years old.
The fact that I am calling her "my cat" is quite an achievement. My wife persuaded me that we should get a cat in 2005. I was quite reluctant. There is a joke that goes:
Women love cats; men say they love cats; when women aren't looking, men kick cats.
And whilst I never actually kicked the cat, I wasn't all that keen on it for the first year or two. Note the "it" there.
Time changes people though. And she was a very sweet cat. She would often come and sit on my lap... and she hardly ever scratched me, badly.
Cats become one of those constants in your life, like the Queen. They are always there and they change so slowly that you don't notice. We had a lot of bad things happen to us, and Sooty was always a reminder of better times.
That became abundantly clear to me in 2011 when my wife died. After that, Sooty was a walking reminder of her. It was a dark time, and Sooty helped me get through it. Maybe more so than any of my human friends. A cat never says the wrong thing.
And so here we are in 2017. It was a type of cancer called lymphoma, apparently. Which spreads quickly and is incurable. At least it was over quickly; I would have hated to see her decline and suffer over a long time. I was with her when she died.
Now it is just me.
 |
| Sooty 2005-2017 |
Women love cats; men say they love cats; when women aren't looking, men kick cats.
And whilst I never actually kicked the cat, I wasn't all that keen on it for the first year or two. Note the "it" there.
Time changes people though. And she was a very sweet cat. She would often come and sit on my lap... and she hardly ever scratched me, badly.
Cats become one of those constants in your life, like the Queen. They are always there and they change so slowly that you don't notice. We had a lot of bad things happen to us, and Sooty was always a reminder of better times.
That became abundantly clear to me in 2011 when my wife died. After that, Sooty was a walking reminder of her. It was a dark time, and Sooty helped me get through it. Maybe more so than any of my human friends. A cat never says the wrong thing.
And so here we are in 2017. It was a type of cancer called lymphoma, apparently. Which spreads quickly and is incurable. At least it was over quickly; I would have hated to see her decline and suffer over a long time. I was with her when she died.
Now it is just me.
Wednesday 13 September 2017
DVD Player
I've had a few DVD players and Blu-ray players. They all do odd things.
1. Why does the player always ask me what language I speak for some disks?
The player is set up in English. Why not use English unless I go and change it? Also, it seems to be able to remember where I last watched up to if I have seen the disk before. How can it remember that and not remember the language?
It's really annoying when I pop in a disk, nip to the kitchen to get snacks, and come back expecting the ads to have finished... but the "language" menu is there instead.
2. Why do they have 2 types of menu? Menu and Pop-up Menu. At least one of these never works for any given disk. And it is impossible to guess which will work for any particular disk.
And don't even get me started on why every disk has its own style of menu... many with little icons for "play" and "setup" that mean nothing to anyone but the graphic design intern that came up with them. Galling after I selected "English" and then don't get any English words in the menu.
3. This operation is not permitted. WTF? I can't use the menu now because who says so? It's my damn player and my disk. I should be able to watch whichever bit I want at the speed I want!!!
It might seem like a good idea to "make" people watch that trailer for your new film... on a new disk. But I'm still being forced to watch trailers for films that came out years ago (many of which were shit, by the way).
Compare all this pain to the experience of watching something on Netflix... and you can see why streaming is winning. Disks will soon die out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)