Horror of the Character Actors

John Campea of The Movie Blog just reviewed The Breakup, and said some interesting things. I won’t go into his review; just follow the link if you’re interested. I will say this much: its not the usual review of this picture.

However, some of what he said got me thinking: He likes Vince Vaughn in the movie, but says that we might be getting tired of him. Vince basically just “plays” Vince. This sounds very familiar. It reminds me of Jim Carrey. The same thing: in comedies, Jim just plays Jim. No muss, no fuss.

In the old days, guys like these two would have a comfortable career as character actors. Whenever a producer would say “Get me a Vince Vaughn type”, his casting director would just call Vince’s agent and see if he was available. Vince would show up, be Vince on screen, and everybody would be happy. If you watch old movies, like I do, you know that there are a ton of folks in them who fall into this category. You probably have no idea of their names, but you always recognize them when they walk on screen. I recently saw Charles Coburn in Carey Grant’s Monkey Business; he’s one of these guys.

Unfortunately, we live in different times. Guys like Vince and Jim who have no range or depth to their performances are getting star billing, that’s just wearing out whatever distinctiveness they have. Don’t get me wrong; I like Vince Vaughn, and I used to like Jim Carrey (before he became over-used and over-hyped). I just think this new system does both the actors and the audience a disservice.

6/5/2006 4:22:02 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  general

Dell's using AJAX
Here’s an interesting thing: Dell is now using AJAX technology (I presume) on their web site, so system config changes now dynamically change the system price, you no longer have to press a “recalculate” button and do the post back. Also,  a price window floats down the page as you scroll (this is more a Javascript gimmick than AJAX).
6/5/2006 2:53:26 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  technology

My opinions on Batman bad guys

The Movie Blog just said that Spider-Man 3 will have 4 villains, and John was quick to express his displeasure. In solidarity with his opinion (considering that I still haven’t seen Spider-Man 2), here’s my comments on the Batman movie franchise, that (in my opinion) started this whole multi-villain thing.

1. Batman: one villain (that counted): the Joker (Jack Nicholson). He stole the show, which was bad (remember the title of this movie?), but not a bad picture, overall.

2. Batman Returns: two villains (that counted, forget about Christopher Walken’s Max Shreck). Bad move. People (Tim Burton, that is) were sidetracked with Jack’s over the top performance in the previous movie, and thought that it would take 2 villains to fill his shoes: bad idea stacked on bad idea. Catwoman was enough of a character. The dual story of Bruce Wayne’s relationship with Selena Kyle and Batman’s relationship with Catwoman would’ve been terrific, but they blew it by adding the cartoonish Penguin character.

3. Batman Forever: two villains (again!). After the Joker, Two-Face is one of the best villains in the Batman genre. And, they totally ignored him so that they could latch onto Jim Carrey’s rising star, playing The Riddler. The Riddler was a small-time villain in the comic, made big by Frank Gorshen’s great TV performance. To add insult to injury, Tommy Lee Jones was playing Two-Face! Now, come on, one of the best actors of modern times, and you ignore him! This focus on what was basically a TV-villain would be a harbinger for the next Batman travesty…

4. Batman and Robin: two villains (and three! heroes). The “ensemble cast” would have been bad enough, but the sheer campiness played pseudo-seriously was downright disgusting. Building on the wholly inappropriate Riddler debacle, this movie tried to cash in on Alicia Silverstone’s rising popularity by casting her as Batgirl in this farce. There should’ve been just one villain (either Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy would have worked), and the movie should have concentrated on the relationship between Batman and Robin (again, remember the title????). This movie almost killed the franchise. Joel Schumaker should never be allowed to make a movie again!

5. Batman Begins: two villains (but, one at a time!). Finally, Batman done right! Even better than the original movie: this one centered around the title character instead of allowing the villains to steal the show. The two villains were there to support the main character, instead of chewing up the screen with their own drama; excellent. And, that plot twist about Ras Al Ghul at the end was brilliant!

So, now, 4 villains in Spider-Man 3. I can hear the cash register now: cha-ching! In a bigger sense, I think its a sign that Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst can’t carry the picture. Especially since they’ve decided to add Gwen Stacey to the mix. This shrieks of Batman and Robin all over again…

6/5/2006 10:48:38 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  general

My comments on "the worst sequels of all time"

The Movie Blog just posted Entertainment Weekly’s list of the top 25 worst sequels of all time. I figured I’d add my 2 cents as comments…

25. The Matrix Reloaded: Never saw it. Haven’t missed it.
24. The Next Karate Kid: The downhill slide started with KK Part III. I though that this was better than III, I was sorry they didn’t do a sequel to this one.
23. Porky’s II: yeah, a piece of junk.
22. Teen Wolf Too: Teen Wolf itself wasn’t much of a movie. They actually pulled it off the shelf when Back to the Future turned out to be a hit. But, yeah, this was a loser.
21. Legally Blonde 2: Not so great, but not as bad as some say. After all, the first one wasn’t exactly Oscar material.
20. Godfather Part III: A good movie, but not a good sequel. It was better as a stand-alone movie than as a capper to the previous two.
19. Revenge of the Nerds II: This didn’t need to be made.
18. Battle for the Planet of the Apes: All POA movies after the second were junk. As was the remake.
17. Star Trek V: Yeah, it was bad, but not as bad as the first (yawn) one was.
16. Ocean’s Twelve: Still haven’t seen it, but as a sequel to a remake of a really bad film, how bad could it be (relatively speaking)?
15. Dumb and Dumberer: I like the name. I didn’t even watch the first one.
14. Conan the Destroyer: yeah, yuck.
13. The Sting II. I didn’t think anybody remembered this. Jackie Gleason playing a Paul Newman role? Come on!
12. Star Wars Episode I: Episode II was even worse.
11. Dirty Dancing Havana Nights: “Nobody puts Baby in…” oh, wrong movie. Yeah, who cares?
10. Jaws The Revenge: Didn’t like the first one, thought that this one was silly, though Jaws 3D was worse, I’m sure.
 9. Speed 2: Another one I missed (on purpose)
 8. Friday the 13th Part VIII: Didn’t watch any of these. I guess you had to be there…
 7. The Fly 2: Hey, this was just on TV! No, didn’t like the remake either.
 6. Weekend at Bernie’s II: I was amazed they made this after the original.
 5. Batman & Robin: Almost killed the franchise, it was that bad. And it could have been sooo good. George Clooney was robbed.
 4. Blues Brothers 2000: Amen.
 3. Leprechaun Back 2 tha Hood: What? they made a SEQUEL??? sheesh.
 2. Caddyshack II: Yeah. It had all the bad parts of the original and none of the good parts. It even had some new bad parts.
 1. Staying Alive: The only good thing about this movie was that it was bad enough to prevent a third “Fever” movie from being made.

5/31/2006 3:41:22 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  general

No X-men spoilers here
Did you notice that I didn’t directly mention any of the X-men plot? Boy, that was hard. I have a lot to say about what happens in the movie, but I don’t want to spoil it for anyone that hasn’t seen it yet (I think this is a sign of just how good the movie is. After all, I really wouldn’t be motivated to reveal much about the movie if it was bad). If I remember, and am so inclined, I’ll post something next month. If anyone wants to discuss it before then, drop me an e-mail.
5/31/2006 2:28:58 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  general

X-men 3

I saw X-men 3 last night. This was a big deal for me, since I generally don’t go to the theater to see movies, instead waiting for them to come to DVD. In fact, the last movie I saw in the theater was  The Incredibles in 2004.

The movie was excellent. It wasn’t Oscar-worthy, by any means. And there were a lot of plot twists that I didn’t particularly care for (being a fan of the X-men comic from way back). However, it was very entertaining, I’d say the best of the three movies.

I disagree with those speculating on an X-men 4 though. I think that would be a big mistake. X-men 3 pretty much ends the story for the X-men. Of course, a Wolverine movie wouldn’t be out of the question…

And by the way, I saw the Superman trailer (interesting watching a trailer for a DC comic character before a Marvel comic character movie). I’m feeling better about Superman Returns now. I still don’t like the fact that they’re building on the old movies instead of doing a more updated story, but it looks like it’s going to be good too.

And (finally) Ghost Rider looks like it’s going to be really good. Nicholas Cage makes a much better Johnny Blaze than a Superman (he was the original choice for the Superman role in what became Superman Returns).

5/31/2006 9:23:42 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  general

Katie's last day on Today

Since it’s Katie’s last day on the Today show, before her move to the CBS Evening News, I’m joining the bandwagon.

I remember when she got started on the Today show way back when. I doubt that they’ll cover this in their retrospectives, since its more than a little uncomfortable.

Deborah Norville was the news reader on a show that used to precede Today. I think it was called “Sunrise”. Anyway, I was a big fan of Deborah and was excited to hear that she would be replacing Jane Pauley on Today; Jane was moving on to (hopefully) bigger things. However, the move didn’t go well. It was obvious from the beginning that Bryant Gumbel was not happy about Deborah, and Deborah was just not “fitting in”. As it happened, Deborah Norville was expecting at the time, and soon left on maternity leave. Filling in for her was this tiny person that no one had heard of: Katie Couric (I bet you were wondering when Katie would enter the picture).

Like Deborah before, Bryant was not happy about sharing the camera with Katie. Both Katie and Deborah were different than Jane had been. Jane was more “traditional”, and let Bryant run the show. Deborah and Katie were more “up front”, and Bryant Gumbel didn’t like sharing the spotlight. Katie was different than Deborah, though. Where Deborah was floundering with Bryant’s obvious negativism, Katie as quick to “handle” it: she stayed right in his face, making light of his obvious discomfort. Sure enough, Katie’s “temporary” position became permanent.

Now, its 15 years later and Katie is on her way to becoming the first female solo anchor of a network news program. People have wondered if she’s “right” for the job, coming from a more “fluffy” show like Today. I remember those early days at Today when she had to deal with a very challenging environment, and ended up on top. I think she’ll do just fine.

5/31/2006 9:09:03 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  TV

CodeCamp is coming
I was hunting around the internet, and found a blurb on the next Portland Code Camp. It’ll be July 22–23 at the WSU campus in Vancouver. It looks like, this year we’ll have wireless network access as well as some off-hours social activities.
5/30/2006 3:28:43 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

NBC: An historical perspective

This week, NBC blinked.

NBC had announced their new Aaron Sorkin created series, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, would run opposite of CSI. This was a ballsy move, since CSI is the #1 series in the country right now.

Then, ABC decided to move its hit show, Grey’s Anatomy, to be opposite CSI as well. This looked like it was shaping up to be a mega-war, and NBC was bound to fail: they’re the #4 network (in the demographics that count), and the show they were fighting with was brand new, with no existing audience.

Well, apparently, NBC managed to rub their two brain cells together, and they’ve moved “Studio 60” to Monday nights, temporarily replacing Medium (Medium will be back mid-season).

Now that everybody is caught up on the “drama drama”:

This reminded me of the days way back when NBC was on top. CBS was starting a new series called “Chicago Hope” on Thursday Nights, because “LA Law” was ending. NBC added its own hospital show called “ER”. Guess what happened? In that case, CBS ended up moving Chicago Hope to a different night. It’s funny how this stuff just keeps coming back…

5/26/2006 10:47:52 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  TV

Jason Diamond is back, and Anthem lives!

I’ve been concerned that the AJAX/ASP.NET project, Anthem, done by Jason Diamond seemed to have died on the vine. My study group had tried Anthem and really liked it. The past few months, there hadn’t been any activity on Jason’s blog.

Well, the drought is over. Jason just published both Anthem 1.2.0 and an additional article on Custom Configuration validation.

Welcome back, Jason! We missed you!

5/26/2006 9:55:56 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

The Idol Finale

Diane Holloway, in her TV Blog had some comments about last night’s American Idol finale. And I (mostly) agree.

Once again, the AI producers show how badly they (and the people who work for them) are at songwriting: the two “single” songs that were sung were the weak points of the night. Now, this is not just an AI phenomenon: the week with the “songs of the 2000’s” theme was also the weakest show they had this season. Let’s face it; there’s just not that much good music being written today. Unfortunately, in today’s market, its less about the music and more about the video.

I think Diane was right about Mandisa, Paris, and Kevin: the first two have great careers ahead of them, Kevin had no business being there. Kevin reminds me of season 1’s Jim Verraros, who also had no business in the finals.

I disagree with her over Chris Daughtry. While he definitely has more talent than either of the two finalists, I disagree that he was the best finalist of any season; Bo Bice (at least) was a much better entertainer & singer than Chris in the same “space”, and both Kelly Clarkson and Clay Aiken were better singers. That being said, Chris’ ejection reminded me of Tamyra Gray’s removal in the first season. Though, it’s interesting that Tamyra’s singing career hasn’t been as successful as Kelly Clarkson’s. And keep in mind that Kelly’s real success has happened after her initial American Idol “prize” contract was over, when she was more able to show her own creativity.

While I agree with Diane’s point that the age range is too great, I think we should leave the top end alone (at 28). This gives us singers with more “depth” and experience. I’d push up the bottom end to 18, though. Those singers who are younger than this can spend those years building up their skills and experience, and be better contestants when they reach 18. There have been several performers who displayed raw talent, but were criticized for lack of “maturity”. No one has been criticized for being “too old” (though Taylor was criticized early for looking too old).

Tonight, we’ll see who takes the prize, but, I think we’ll be seeing more from both contestants in the future.

5/24/2006 9:29:28 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  TV

First (real) impressions of Resharper 2.0

It’s the end of the day, and I’ve spent a good chunk of it using Resharper 2.0 in a real project, rather than just tooling around its features (as I did with the beta), and have some first impressions.

1. A lot of the (nice) features start the wrong way by default. I had to play with my syntax highlighting and Unit Test settings to get them the way I want them. I was all set to post a complaint / bug related to Resharper always building the project before running the tests, until I found the button (default on) that causes this. Turned out to be a feature  .

2. Unit Testing inside VS is fantastic! And the Unit Test Runner window is dockable, so I’ve added it to my tabbed bottom windows (where the Task List and Output Window live). That gives me quick access to the test list and the test results. The runner properly wraps the output and includes hyperlinks back to my source code, so its superior to the NUnit graphic runner.

So far, I’m liking version 2.0 much more than version 1.5, and I don’t think I’d ever want to do C# development without it anymore. And, the price tag was a mere $199, rather than the thousand dollars for VSTS.

5/23/2006 5:03:04 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

Tech stuff

This should probably be two posts, but I’m feeling lazy right about now…

First, Resharper 2.0 is released. It’s a “feature explosion” since 1.5 (what I’ve been using), and supports both VS 2003 and VS 2005. I highly recommend it. It’s refactoring support blows away VSTS, and at a nice price point ($199). If you already have a 1.5 license, the upgrade is (apparently) free.

Second: I’ve told several people that for Ajax to really be successful (mainstream), people need to be able to do it without writing Javascript; the language just doesn’t scale well at all. I’ve been saying that the way to think about the problem is to treat Javascript as “the assembly language of the browser”; that is, use a high level language, like C# or Java, and “compile” it to the necessary Javascript code. ASP.NET (and I assume JSP) sort of does this, but its much more limited; more a “code generator” than a “compiler”. Well, there’s some new promising work from Nikhil Kothari: a technology called “Script#”. This has some seriously great implications. Imagine being able to write Ajax-style code in C#! I’ll be following this closely and praying hard!

5/23/2006 9:00:23 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

Ah yes. Now, the truth about CodePlex is out
Mike Gunderloy has an article on CodePlex, and he mentions the real reason (in my opinion) that Microsoft has decided to reinvent the GotDotNet wheel: some of the features require the Team Foundation Server client to use! So, this is all just a way to (once again) suck money from developers.
5/22/2006 8:33:58 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

The national language

Once again, the folks in Congress are trying to create a “national language” out of English. On the face of it, this seems pretty benign. Who can argue that citizens in the United States should be able to participate in the larger community, to hear and respond to positions and arguments made by various parties. Boy, that sounds good.

Then, the practicality of application rears its ugly head. Just what does it mean that English is the United States’ national language? If we treat ability to speak/understand English as a condition of naturalization; does this mean that we have to give English proficiency exams to prospective citizens? And, how do we measure that proficiency? What does “proficient in English” mean? Is reading/writing good enough? what about deaf people that “speak” using sign language? Or, is it a writing proficiency? Those who have studied foreign languages know that proficiencies in reading/writing are different than proficiencies in listening/speaking. Just what is enough?

And, what about other issues? Does this affect how government signs are done? Would it be legal for a sign to be printing in a language other than English?

Other than nationalist rah-rah, I can’t help wondering what Congress is trying to achieve with this type of legislation.

5/19/2006 10:55:57 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  politics