The Dorky and Skewed World of Me
For the most part, I stick things here I don't want to forget, or things that I find might be useful to others. Thanks for visiting...
Gibson/Kramer has been offering a replica of Eddie’s old Custom Kramer since 2003, and I just found out about it today. Sheesh.
http://www.musicyo.com/product_specs.asp?pf_id=984
The only thing that sucks about the replica, called the “Kramer 1984” is that it doesn’t have an asymetrical neck back.
I know just enough Perl to be dangerous. Check out my Chuck Norris Facts web page that randomly displays you a Chuck Norris fact. (Facts were gathered from ChuckNorrisFacts.com.)
The latest Strong Bad Email is the funniest they’ve had in a while. Check it out HERE.
This is how I feel everyday dealing with friends, family, and strangers that are into sports…
As many of you know, Pixar – a company originally started by Lucasfilm (they created the “Pixar” computer for 3D animation) and then sold to Steve Jobs, has been responsible for the most successful computer animated feature films ever. (Finding Nemo, Toy Story, and The Incredibles just to name a few.) Sometime ago, Pixar announced that they would no longer be distributing their films through Disney and were going it alone. Since Disney no longer had the Pixar cash cow to depend on, they started developing their own CG animated features. (Chicken Little, which was pretty successful, but to the movie fan wasn’t on-par with Pixar’s films.)
On the 24th, Disney issued a press release that they were aquiring Pixar for $7.4 Billion, and that Pixar CEO, Steve Jobs will join the Disney Board of Directors.
More info can be found on the MacRumors site, HERE.
So I’ve been “DVR’ing” the syndicated reruns of Angel from TNT-HD, the “HD” version of the TNT network, and have discovered that for some reason, TNT stretches the image to fill a 16×9 screen. My Angel episodes are all deformed horizontally. I can understand stretching commercials. (Who cares about image quality for a commercial anyway.) But, deforming the show I’m watching is not cool. I understand why they do it. The TNT channel, and the TNT-HD channel have the exact same programming. I figure that it’s a lot easier to run it that way. However, don’t screw up my watching experience on the HD channel by making everything by default (whether it was in 16×9 originally or not) fill my 16×9 screen. I would much rather they just display the 4:3 programming in it’s original “square” form. So sure, the image clarity is still pretty dang impressive on TNT-HD, but if it’s going to screw up 4:3 shows, I’ll just record those from the ol’ school analog TNT station.
From the title of this post you might conclude that I didn’t like the new King Kong movie, but you’d be incorrect. The movie WAS enjoyable. My only complaint is that usually when watching a 3 hour movie, your butt is what starts to hurt. In Kong’s case, it’s your EYES. While there are several great CGI action sequences in the movie, the constant bombardment on your optic nerves with super fast CG camera moves, motion bluring, and overly complicated environments starts to get..well…annoying.
I would venture a guess that about 50% of the movie has no dialog or character development. Half of the movie is nothing but visual stimulation by CGI environments and characters. This movie actually would have been better if several sequences were cut from the film. There simply wasn’t enough plot to support a 3 hour motion picture.
Let me iterate again however, that in the end I still consider King Kong to be an entertaining movie. King Kong was an excellent CG character. His facial expressions were top-notch. Jack Black did a good job portraying the obsessed film maker, and Naomi Watts did a great job expressing her character’s love of Kong.
The problem with King Kong is that the story gets a little lost with all the long action sequences. If the movie was shorter, and focused more on the characters instead of the computer created effects, I think it would have flowed better.
I give it a 3 out of 5 stars. * * *
I’ve known that the new video iPod didn’t support Firewire since before the new iPod was released but never gave it much thought until my brother brought over his. I own a G4 eMac, and a G3 iBook. Both use USB 1.0, and Firewire 400. Without thinking, I plugged his video iPod into my iPod firewire cable. (Which is the exact same plug BTW.) My eMac promptly told me that Firewire is no longer supported by the new iPod. That got me thinking …
If I were to buy a new video iPod, I would be forced to sync my MP3 and Video library using the painfully slow USB 1.0 connection. How lame! Essentially, if you don’t have a Mac with USB 2.0, there’s no point in buying a video iPod. If you’re someone who really wants the new iPod, and doesn’t have USB 2.0, I guess you’ll just have to buy a new Mac as well. Sure, spending an additional $1000 just so that you can use your new iPod makes sense. Sheesh. Bad move Apple.