Where feminine hygiene is no laughing matter ...Rick's Cafe Americain

George Lucas had a limited budget and limited technology when he made Star Wars and for years complained to anyone who listened that Star Wars was one about 1/4 of what he wanted it to be.  This left fans salivating at the prospect of what the prequels might be like, with modern special effects technology.  But before Episode I came the Special Editions and we began to get a taste of George’s “true” vision.  For the most part, the Special Editions just upgraded the technology (though oddly they didn’t upgrade the most glaring special effects error in Star Wars, where Obi Wan’s light saber nearly flickers off), such as beefing up the exploding Death Star (I liked the original one better) and there are some instances where there actually was improvement.  If Lucas had left it at that, then no problem, but he went further and actually changed the story in some places.

The worst example of this is Greedo shooting first.  One of the coolest scense in Star Wars is where Han Solo, only introduced about two minutes prior, pulls his gun under the table and blows away Greedo right before Greedo is about to blast him.  But, apparently, that is not how it was supposed to happen and it only looked that way because of inadequate special effects.  Apparently, Greedo was supposed to shoot first and miss FROM POINT BLANK RANGE and only then, after being fired upon, was Solo to blast him.  This takes a great scene and makes it into one of those, “oh come on, do you expect me to believe that crap” kind of scenes that happen every five minutes in the Matrix sequels.  Lucas got lucky in that his original intentions did not come across.  But, rather than accepting this blessing, Lucas changed the movie to put back HIS vision.

There are other examples and what they all demonstrate is that Lucas simply does not get that the creator of art does not keep sole ownership of it once it is released into the wilds.  Art (whether it be written, drawn, filmed or performed) can take on a life of its own once it is made available to the world and, in my opinion, that is often one of the marks of great art, people take it and make it their own.  To then take that art and alter it long after it has had its impact (especially in a substantive rather than superficial way) is pretty fucking arrogant.

But, making an alternative version of something can be acceptable and director’s cuts have a strong history in cinema (though the Special Editions cannot really be considered director’s cuts), so while I think the substantive changes demonstrated that Lucas got lucky in many ways with Star Wars, the original is still there for everyone to enjoy if they so choose.  But this decision takes away that option and that is unacceptable.

I can speak from experience that watching a well done DVD on a wide screen plasma home theater system that projects at the exact pixel rate of DVDs absolutely blows away the VCR experience.  Lucas’ decision to not release the original trilogy movies on DVD effectively excludes them and diminishes them to a 2nd class existence on 2nd (or 3rd) class technology.  And in case there is any confusion on this, consider this quote:

“The original versions technically don’t exist,” says Lucasfilm’s Jim Ward, who is the project’s executive producer. “(Lucas) wanted to represent the films as they exist in his mind, and that’s the special-editions versions.”

Lucas could have easily thrown the Originals into a DVD set along with the Special Editions.  The recently released Aliens mega-pack contained multiple different versions of the movie.  Or Lucas could have sold them separately and probably made a lot more money.  This is not an economic decision, but a principled one.  And it shows that George Lucas is an arrogant fucking asshole.  If there was anything I would ever consider stealing so I would have the satisfaction that he would not get my money it would be this.

I just hope that Lucas will listen to his die hard fans.  The ones that made Star Wars what it is (or, perhaps I should say, was), get down off his pedestal and reconsider his decision.

George Lucas had a limited budget and limited technology when he made Star Wars and for years complained to anyone who listened that Star Wars was one about 1/4 of what he wanted it to be.  This left fans salivating at the prospect of what the prequels might be like, with modern special effects technology.  But before Episode I came the Special Editions and we began to get a taste of George’s “true” vision.  For the most part, the Special Editions just upgraded the technology (though oddly they didn’t upgrade the most glaring special effects error in Star Wars, where Obi Wan’s light saber nearly flickers off), such as beefing up the exploding Death Star (I liked the original one better) and there are some instances where there actually was improvement.  If Lucas had left it at that, then no problem, but he went further and actually changed the story in some places.

The worst example of this is Greedo shooting first.  One of the coolest scense in Star Wars is where Han Solo, only introduced about two minutes prior, pulls his gun under the table and blows away Greedo right before Greedo is about to blast him.  But, apparently, that is not how it was supposed to happen and it only looked that way because of inadequate special effects.  Apparently, Greedo was supposed to shoot first and miss FROM POINT BLANK RANGE and only then, after being fired upon, was Solo to blast him.  This takes a great scene and makes it into one of those, “oh come on, do you expect me to believe that crap” kind of scenes that happen every five minutes in the Matrix sequels.  Lucas got lucky in that his original intentions did not come across.  But, rather than accepting this blessing, Lucas changed the movie to put back HIS vision.

There are other examples and what they all demonstrate is that Lucas simply does not get that the creator of art does not keep sole ownership of it once it is released into the wilds.  Art (whether it be written, drawn, filmed or performed) can take on a life of its own once it is made available to the world and, in my opinion, that is often one of the marks of great art, people take it and make it their own.  To then take that art and alter it long after it has had its impact (especially in a substantive rather than superficial way) is pretty fucking arrogant.

But, making an alternative version of something can be acceptable and director’s cuts have a strong history in cinema (though the Special Editions cannot really be considered director’s cuts), so while I think the substantive changes demonstrated that Lucas got lucky in many ways with Star Wars, the original is still there for everyone to enjoy if they so choose.  But this decision takes away that option and that is unacceptable.

I can speak from experience that watching a well done DVD on a wide screen plasma home theater system that projects at the exact pixel rate of DVDs absolutely blows away the VCR experience.  Lucas’ decision to not release the original trilogy movies on DVD effectively excludes them and diminishes them to a 2nd class existence on 2nd (or 3rd) class technology.  And in case there is any confusion on this, consider this quote:

“The original versions technically don’t exist,” says Lucasfilm’s Jim Ward, who is the project’s executive producer. “(Lucas) wanted to represent the films as they exist in his mind, and that’s the special-editions versions.”

Lucas could have easily thrown the Originals into a DVD set along with the Special Editions.  The recently released Aliens mega-pack contained multiple different versions of the movie.  Or Lucas could have sold them separately and probably made a lot more money.  This is not an economic decision, but a principled one.  And it shows that George Lucas is an arrogant fucking asshole.  If there was anything I would ever consider stealing so I would have the satisfaction that he would not get my money it would be this.

I just hope that Lucas will listen to his die hard fans.  The ones that made Star Wars what it is (or, perhaps I should say, was), get down off his pedestal and reconsider his decision.

Daredevil (Ben Affleck) is a blind superhero gifted with bat-like radar, heightened senses and incredible acrobatic skills.  A lawyer by day, he is a vigilante by night in Hells Kitchen (my hood).  Jennifer Garner plays Electra, the love interest with semi-special powers of her own.  The bad guys are Bullseye (Colin Farrell), who “never misses,” and the Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan), the boss of the criminal underworld.  As for the plot, the bad guys are being bad (and power hungry), Daredevil kicks ass to deliver his own justice and pretty girl gets caught in the middle and kicks some ass too.

Daredevil managed to keep my interest throughout and was, at least for the first 2/3rds, much darker than I expected (in a good way).  The plot was solid and did not have any obvious holes.  I also give Davedevil props for not succumbing to the current trend of dragging out every action scene until it is completely over the top and boring.  However, Daredevil has a few downsides that result in it just being an “ok,” rather than “good,” movie.

First of all, Ben Affleck is a horrible actor, an even worse fighter (watching him run when he was supposed to be this incredibly acrobatic superhero was quite amusing) and the love scene between him and Jennifer Garner was particularly painful to watch.  Second, none of the bad guys were particularly interesting.  Bullseye just throws things and Kingpin, who I remember from Spiderman comics, was underdeveloped and underutilized.  Third, while the plot is fine, it is basic and there is very little development of any character other than Daredevil.  Also, while the movie is dark in the beginning and middle, it does not have the guts to take that darkness all the way to the end, which feels like a sell-out. 

All-in-all, not a bad movie to catch on T.V., but that is about it.

One little oddity that I have to comment on.  In the opening scene, Ben Affleck is prosecuting a guy for rape, but in the next “laywer” scene he and his partner are discussing not getting clients who pay.  Nice that no one producing this movie caught that “prosecuters” work for the city and don’t have private law practices.

Regarding the Hi-Definition HBO movie experience (on the wide screen plasma with surround sound), it is pretty sweet, but does not match a good DVD.  However, I think a large part of that is simply because the Hi-Def movie feed fills the whole screen, which results in an obviously wider viewing angle than your typical T.V. movie because it truly utilizes the 16:9 aspect ratio, but you can still tell that you are not getting the entire screen.  Daredevil teased me by starting out letterbox and then shifting after the credits were over.  I wish they would just show the movies in letterbox, but I am not going to hold my breath on that one.  Bottom line, the Hi-Def movie experience is pretty good, especially when you are just flipping channels and stumble across a movie to watch, but if you have invested in the wide screen home theater system, get the DVD for movies you really want to see but missed in the theater.

Daredevil (Ben Affleck) is a blind superhero gifted with bat-like radar, heightened senses and incredible acrobatic skills.  A lawyer by day, he is a vigilante by night in Hells Kitchen (my hood).  Jennifer Garner plays Electra, the love interest with semi-special powers of her own.  The bad guys are Bullseye (Colin Farrell), who “never misses,” and the Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan), the boss of the criminal underworld.  As for the plot, the bad guys are being bad (and power hungry), Daredevil kicks ass to deliver his own justice and pretty girl gets caught in the middle and kicks some ass too.

Daredevil managed to keep my interest throughout and was, at least for the first 2/3rds, much darker than I expected (in a good way).  The plot was solid and did not have any obvious holes.  I also give Davedevil props for not succumbing to the current trend of dragging out every action scene until it is completely over the top and boring.  However, Daredevil has a few downsides that result in it just being an “ok,” rather than “good,” movie.

First of all, Ben Affleck is a horrible actor, an even worse fighter (watching him run when he was supposed to be this incredibly acrobatic superhero was quite amusing) and the love scene between him and Jennifer Garner was particularly painful to watch.  Second, none of the bad guys were particularly interesting.  Bullseye just throws things and Kingpin, who I remember from Spiderman comics, was underdeveloped and underutilized.  Third, while the plot is fine, it is basic and there is very little development of any character other than Daredevil.  Also, while the movie is dark in the beginning and middle, it does not have the guts to take that darkness all the way to the end, which feels like a sell-out. 

All-in-all, not a bad movie to catch on T.V., but that is about it.

One little oddity that I have to comment on.  In the opening scene, Ben Affleck is prosecuting a guy for rape, but in the next “laywer” scene he and his partner are discussing not getting clients who pay.  Nice that no one producing this movie caught that “prosecuters” work for the city and don’t have private law practices.

Regarding the Hi-Definition HBO movie experience (on the wide screen plasma with surround sound), it is pretty sweet, but does not match a good DVD.  However, I think a large part of that is simply because the Hi-Def movie feed fills the whole screen, which results in an obviously wider viewing angle than your typical T.V. movie because it truly utilizes the 16:9 aspect ratio, but you can still tell that you are not getting the entire screen.  Daredevil teased me by starting out letterbox and then shifting after the credits were over.  I wish they would just show the movies in letterbox, but I am not going to hold my breath on that one.  Bottom line, the Hi-Def movie experience is pretty good, especially when you are just flipping channels and stumble across a movie to watch, but if you have invested in the wide screen home theater system, get the DVD for movies you really want to see but missed in the theater.

The issue came up in 2000, and nearly half of voters voted for Dubya anyway.  The issue came up again during this campaign, appropriately, because Bush was trading on his manufactured image as a soldier and a hero.  But the issue has run its course.

There appears to be no question that Bush traded on his father’s position and influence to get the National Guard assignment in the first place, and then to be re-assigned to Red Blount’s Alabama campaign.  Bush himself has admitted it: “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." Bush didn’t want to go to Vietnam.  Few did, so why try to crucify him?

Because it shows his hypocrisy and duplicity, of course.  How could this man, who not only avoided any potentially dangerous service to his country, but did it in arguably the most passive way possible, have the gall to put on a flight suit and play “Commander-in-Chief”?  to attack Kerry’s anti-war stance? I admit that I do find that galling—but the point has been made.  Indeed, we have over and over again seen that Bush and Rumsfeld are the worst kind of chickenhawks.  They want war, but for political reasons, and they are more than happy to share in the spoils, but not the risks, not the price.  Bush’s military service, or lack thereof, is the least of it.

There are so many examples of Bush’s hypocrisy and duplicity—examples of actions that have and will continue to affect our lives in significant ways—that we needn’t be reaching back to the 1970’s when an understandably frightened and coddled Bush sought to take the easiest way out.  If we’re going to go back that far, let’s talk about Bush’s cocaine use, or his criminal record.  But we don’t need to go back that far.

Bush’s foreign policy has been foolhardy and ill-advised.  Under his presidency, the U.S. has lost enormous credibility both abroad and at home.  He and his advisors have repeatedly been caught lying, and had the gall to keep on lying.  When investigations are called for, the administration has carefully controlled who is running the investigation and what they can see.  Let’s talk about Plame, about Iraq, about the Saudis, about Halliburton, about yellowcake and clean air and clean water and children left behind the Energy Task Force and the 9/11 investigation and the Patriot Act and the deficit and joblessness and all of the things that matter, that need to be addressed and changed and brought into the light.

Even as our nation begins to crumble around us, even as we cry out, “Anyone But Bush!”, the Democrats display a remarkable shortsightedness, playing for perceived political points, and missing the big picture.  There is no question in my mind that the Republicans are better than the Democrats at politics and dirty tricks.  It is their focus on those that is corrupting our government and our country.  We can’t win on that basis, and we shouldn’t be trying.

The only problem with a complete walkover is that the media is going to lose interest.  Kerry is hot right now and he wants to keep that momentum as long as he can.  But if there is no race, Kerry will get less coverage over the next couple of months and that means that he’ll have to spend money to stay on the radar screen.  Howard Dean’s last stand (sort of) in Wisconsin will help for the next week.  But I think Dean will be done after he gets clobbered in Wisconsin.

That leaves Edwards.  Clark is out and the rest of the candidates are jokes.  If Edwards stays, as he has been largely throughout, positive in his campaigning, Kerry is probably better off if Edwards can stay close enough to him to pass the laugh test.  It will keep the media hungry and talking about a Super Tuesday showdown.  Kerry can still just attack Bush and get coverage and then Kerry can go out and win Super Tuesday in a landslide and get yet another big bump.  But how big of a story Kerry’s Super Tuesday landslide is (because that is a given) will probably depend more on Edwards than Kerry.

The only problem with a complete walkover is that the media is going to lose interest.  Kerry is hot right now and he wants to keep that momentum as long as he can.  But if there is no race, Kerry will get less coverage over the next couple of months and that means that he’ll have to spend money to stay on the radar screen.  Howard Dean’s last stand (sort of) in Wisconsin will help for the next week.  But I think Dean will be done after he gets clobbered in Wisconsin.

That leaves Edwards.  Clark is out and the rest of the candidates are jokes.  If Edwards stays, as he has been largely throughout, positive in his campaigning, Kerry is probably better off if Edwards can stay close enough to him to pass the laugh test.  It will keep the media hungry and talking about a Super Tuesday showdown.  Kerry can still just attack Bush and get coverage and then Kerry can go out and win Super Tuesday in a landslide and get yet another big bump.  But how big of a story Kerry’s Super Tuesday landslide is (because that is a given) will probably depend more on Edwards than Kerry.

Posting who they are will just give more publicity for them, but maybe if all the poker blogs got together and promoted a boycott . . ..  Or maybe there is a way to retalliate, by having a massive online spamming of their site?  I’m devoid of good ideas, so I’m soliciting yours.

“Nets” was a stupid and derivative name when the current Nets’ ABA forbears on Long Island took it on to get fake local cred by rhyming with the Mets and Jets.  (Dumber still was the Team Tennis franchise the New York Sets.) It is time to put that stupid moniker to rest.

At first I was partial to calling the team the Brooklyn Bums in romantic homage to the Dodgers v1.0 and the love this town had for that team.  But now I’ve decided that I’d rather call them the Brooklyn Bridge, and if Bruce Ratner thought about it, he would also.

I admit that there is a certain lameness to the name.  It is sort of obvious, it is a non-pluralized word (though “Bridges“ would be far worse) and it doesn’t translate well to a plush toy.  At the same time the bridge imagery works.  The team would be a unifying source of pride for an almost inconceivably diverse borough.  The bridge also establishes Brooklyn as an important city unto itself, but still intimately tied to Manhattan.

Finally, since you know that Ratner won’t hold onto the team forever, is it possible that a real estate guy could pass up the chance to be known as the guy who sold the Brooklyn Bridge?

ChristWeb, the reigning King
Submitted Post: This post appears to be a hybrid: half USA Today article, half ChristWeb’s own observations about our policy on illegal immigrants. I say “apears to be” because although the quality of the writing takes a turn for the worse about halfway through, I stopped comparing the post to the article it links to after the fifth identical paragraph.  If you are going to quote from a source, there must be some way to indicate which words are yours and which words you are quoting.  If only . . . hmmm… wait—there are these funny symbols on my keyboard: “ yes!  that’s it!  One could use these: “”.  Nah, it’ll never catch on. 4
Challenge: Christweb want’s to be the Highlander, but doesn’t really give any compelling reason why (other than “they don’t die").  Devoid of style or originality.  If there can be only one, this isn’t it.  4.

Dan K. O’Leary
Submitted Post: I gave this post a 0 last week, and yet he picked it as his submission this week.  Minus one for being that boneheaded.  -1.
Challenge: This guy just gets stranger and stranger.  Given his choice of any movie character, he chose “Commando”.  Why?  Because he would be able to “get freaky with Rae Dawn Chong” and have Alyssa Milano as his daughter.  Also, he thinks Arnold’s accent is “the smoothest . . . on the planet” [NOTE TO CHRISTWEB—SEE HOW EASY THAT WAS?]. Points off for questionable taste and judgment, and because there is something very wrong with some of his symbols (like those funny ones I just discovered), but points for writing a coherent, somewhat amusing response.  5, unless it wasn’t completely ironic, in which case 0 and a shower for me.

Southern Musings
Submitted Post: A good friend is getting married, and Southern Musings will be there, in a place of honor.  Warm fuzzies all around, but Rick likes his posts with more Edge(TM). 5
Challenge: SM clearly put a lot of thought into this one, and it paid off.  Insightful, revealing, well-written and—if Rick cared for chick flicks—a fine movie recommendation. 8

Walloworld
Submitted Post: Wonderful! Walloworld has discovered a totally different way to indicate when he is using someone elses words!  He has also thoroughly examined and explained the digital music pricing market.  Rick finds these things interesting, but then Rick erratically refers to himself in the third person.  A bit long, but points for pulling together two other threads to get started (thereby spreading the link-love), and major points for the Affleck/Lopez jab.  8
Challenge: Walloworld clearly put a lot of thought into this one—maybe too much.  Too long, I lost interest in the process before I got to the punch line.  But I liked the Eyre Affair, and am glad to hear the next book is out.  Legolas is pretty cool, too, though I think I might have to dye my eyebrows if I were him.  7

Where the Heck Was I
Submitted Post: I changed the name of this blog, because it’s real name is offensive: it uses the word “Hell”.  Shit!  Anyway, um, I don’t know, I guess it is kind of big. 6
Challenge: Roma’s a good choice, if only to get to deliver some of those fantastic lines (the one you picked is probably the best, WTHWI).  But seriously, I think you need to get laid.  The constant, incessant, repetitive references to chicks and naked chicks and well, it’s enough already. 8.