Twinkle Twinkle Little Star

On Friday night there was mass panic and confusion as the skies above Britain lit up like the Blackpool Illuminations when a... no, wait... I mean, there was some concern over a possible... no, that's not it. Here we go...a few people mentioned on Twitter that they had seen a meteor or something in the sky.

The debate continues as to whether it was a meteor or space junk falling to earth but whichever explanation turns out to be true I'm just happy it occurred.

Firstly, I loved reading comments along the lines of "I don't know what it is but it's definitely not a UFO" by those who would do well to look up the word 'unidentified' in a dictionary.

Secondly, I found the "It was like Independence Day" quote from the BBC report at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19683687 highly amusing. Well done to the reporter in finding someone to liken the sight to a film they have clearly never seen. See if you can spot the difference in the two pictures below.

Finally, and most importantly, it inspired me to go out into the garden at stupid o'clock in the morning and take a long, hard, gaze at the sky. It was, fortunately, fairly clear and despite all the nearby light pollution the view was still fairly awe inspiring. Once again I found myself wondering if there is life out there. To be honest, I think that there probably is.

Perhaps I should make clear that by 'life' I'm talking about any form of life - single-celled micro-organisms, vegetation, Dalek - anything. No, I don't believe that little green men are visiting us, abducting people and doing eye-watering things with probes, but I do think that the numbers alone suggest that the chances are Earth is not the only life-hosting planet in the universe.

 

The astonishing image above was created by Nick Risinger as shown on the recent Horizon episode "How Big Is The Universe". An interactive version can be found at : http://media.skysurvey.org/interactive360/index.html …

The universe is quite big after all. We can't even see it all because we can only see as far as the light from the birth of our universe has reached - what's known as the visible universe. How can we rule out the possibility of life existing on planets orbiting stars which we don't even know about yet?

A quick check around the net and it would appear that currently the best guess for the number of stars in the observable universe is around 3 septillion which is 3 followed by 24 zeroes (US format), and some consider that a conservative guess. That's quite a bit more than there are grains of sand on the Earth and those are just the stars.

Between 10-20% of these stars may have one or more planets orbiting them which in turn may have one or more moons. So even if just a tiny fraction of a single percent of these are likely candidates to support life that's still an awful lot of possibilities.

And if that doesn't leave your head spinning I just want to leave you with a quote from Douglas Adams - "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

Ade

Riding Into The Sunset

As I keep being reminded by Twitter, one of my favourite series is returning for it's fifth and final season very soon. Despite being under almost constant threat of cancellation from the start, Fringe has been given a 13 episode run for it to end how its' writers see fit. It has been cancelled, of course, it's just that it's been given a whole season's notice. It may, or may not, end the way we want but at least it's getting a chance to end on its' own terms.

There are many series I have watched and enjoyed only to have the rug pulled out from under me with a sudden and abrupt cancellation. One of the most vicious was possibly Alien Nation which ended on a cliffhanger in 1990. Fortunately that was resolved in a series of TV movies, but not until four years later!

I recall numerous cancellations - Terra Nova, Alcatraz, Caprica, The Event, Defying Gravity, Firefly, Jericho, Flash-Forward and Stargate Universe to name but a few. Of course some may have been more deserving than others and not all are sadly missed ... *cough* Terra Nova *cough*.

It seems to me being a Sci-Fi fan is likely to cause a disproportionate increase in cancellation-frustration compared to fans of any other genre, mainly due to the fact that so many shows include such high-concept hooks which we have to accept are not going to be resolved for years, let alone by the end of season one. They require a certain amount of dedication by the viewer.

Take a series like CSI. If you miss an episode, or watch a couple out of order, it's unlikely to spoil your enjoyment of the rest of the season. If you missed an episode of Lost however, there was a good chance you won't have the faintest idea what was happening the following week and could well give up on it altogether.

Casting aside the question of 'Do the writers actually have any idea where it's all heading in the end?' for now - and that's another blog entry entirely - I admit that, sadly, these are the types of shows I enjoy the most. I've always preferred those shows where characters and situations develop throughout the series over those that like to hit that big red reset button on a weekly basis.

 

I say sadly because these are the shows where cancellations are most heavily felt. Yes, hands up, I enjoyed FlashForward and was gutted that the second flash in the closing episode of season one led to ... nothing whatsoever. As for Stagate Universe, having previously enjoyed both SG1 and Atlantis, I genuinely considered SGU to be the best of them - in fact, one of the best Sci-Fi shows out there - but two series in and ... CHOP!

I've spoken to many people about new shows and increasingly I get comments along the lines of 'yes, it sounds good, but it will probably be cancelled before we know what's happening so I won't bother watching it', so are the networks just shooting themselves in the foot and pushing future audiences away ?

I know this is just wishful thinking but it seems to me that if the networks want to rebuild their audience figures then the process of commissioning a new show should include a provision for a resolution, a chance to let the writers end a series when the time comes, regardless if it's five episodes in or several years down the line. Yes, the networks are spending the money, but we are committing something much more valuable - our time to watch it and talk about it.

We'll just have to cross our fingers that, given the chance, they come up with a better ending than they could muster for Battlestar Galactica ...


Ade

LOL

Humour. It's a funny thing.

Apparently mine is dry, so I've been told, but I care not. I like what I like and perhaps you will too. In the past couple of days I've re-discovered a couple of comedy gems which had just drifted off my radar. They both appeal to my sense of humour as they may to yours.

The first is Gary Larsons 'The Far Side' - a collection of largely single panel cartoons originally appearing in newspapers between about 1980 and 1995 but now available in several collections.

Whether surreal, paranoid, featuring animals or alien lifeforms in very human situations or just relying on plain visual gags, I think it more often hits the mark than misses it.

 

 

 

My second dose of humour comes courtesy of Douglas Adams and John Lloyd via a book called "The Deeper Meaning Of Liff". Essentially it's a dictionary of things that there aren't any words for yet. And instead of coming up with new words why not use all those spare words "which spend all their time doing nothing but loafing about on signposts pointing at places" so they can "start earning their keep in everyday conversation." Yes, they are all place names and here are a few examples...

 

 

 

 

ELY (n.) - The first, tiniest inkling you get that something, somewhere, has gone terribly wrong.

 

MACROY (n.) - An authoritative, confident opinion based on one you read in a newspaper.

 

SOMPTING (n.) - The practice of dribbling involuntarily into one's own pillow.

 

SPREAKLEY (adj.) - Irritatingly cheerful in the morning.

 

NYBSTER (n.) - Sort of person who takes the lift to travel one floor.

 

GOOLE (n.) - The puddle on the bar into which the barman puts your change.

 

SCRONKEY (n.) - Something that hits the window as a result of a violent sneeze.

 

GUERNSEY - Queasy but umbowed. The kind of feeling one gets when discovering a plastic compartment in a fridge in which thing are growing.

 

GRIMBISTER - Large body of cars on motorway all travelling at exactly the speed limit because one of them is a police car.

 

FULKING (participial vb.) - Pretending not to be in when the carol-singers come round.

 

WINKLEY (n.) - A lost object which turns up immediately you've gone and bought a replacement for it.

 

ACKLINS - (pl.n.) The odd twinges you get in parts of your body when you scratch other parts.

 

 

 

 

 

Ah well, you've got to laugh haven't you ...

 

Ade

    

To Boldly Go Where Someone Has Gone Before

Today I stumbled across the first image from the set of the Robocop remake and my curiosity was sated. Yes, it is just a snatched photo mid-production and there are still effects to be created and polishing to be done but to me this looks more Power Rangers than Robocop, and somewhere deep inside this make me a little bit happy.

I have nothing against remakes in principle, in fact my all-time favourite film - John Carpenters The Thing - is itself a remake, but sometimes I wonder why they bother.

Perhaps part of the problem is just down to age. When you're young a remake of anything is likely the first version you see. Fast forward twenty years and those favourites of your childhood become that much more precious, a part of you even, so when you hear they are being remade you're instantly on the defensive.

Partly it's simply due to a history of mediocre remakes and the suspicion that it's not being made with the passion of someone who was inspired by the original but more likely by studios keen to extract every last drop of cash from existing and established properties, cynically churning out a rushed, modernised clone, tarted up with a splash of  CGI. Which came first, a heartfelt desire to update classic horror The Omen or a 6th June 2006 (06.06.06) marketing opportunity?

A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Italian Job, The Omen, King Kong, The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Hitcher, Fright Night and a number of John Carpenter films such as The Fog and even the peerless Halloween, have all suffered from remakeitis and, as far as I can tell, it's the young pretenders who have faded into obscurity first. Or have they? I am biased, after all, because I prefer the original versions of all the films listed above.

 

There are fair reasons for remakes. Many successful foreign language films are remade for the large audience who wouldn't dream of sitting through two hours of subtitles. Perhaps technology has advanced enough to bring an original vision more accurately to the screen such as in the case of The Thing. Perhaps a director really does have a fresh vision for a film that he genuinely adores.

I think the real problem is simpler. We don't like change. Take Star Wars as an example. Every so often George Lucas takes his original trilogy and makes some changes; a new bit of film here, a tidied up effect there, change this sequence, swap those actors... he just can't seem to leave it alone. He says he sees nothing wrong with using the latest technologies to continually 'improve' the film but these changes have upset a great many Star Wars fans, and this isn't even a remake, just a tweaking.

 

I like a good film regardless and if a remake provides that then it's fine by me but I think making a great (or even good) film is largely down to luck. So many ingredients have to be perfect - the script, the crew, the cast, the films ability to tap into and understand it's audience and having the money, people and time to do it as it needs to be done. To think that all this can be duplicated precisely, on demand, is, I think, extremely optimistic which is why studios are very keen to find the next big franchise. If they find the right ingredients these days they want to keep hold of them, to repeat it immediately.

 

That said they don't have to be hits, they just need to make money. Hits are great but remaking a proven success should reduce the risk by tapping into the brand recognition. It's likely that a new audience may have heard of -  if not actually seen -  the original, while the old audience may watch out of curiosity alone. Most of the remakes I listed above turned a profit and the studios seem to have learnt that if they can keep to a low budget - say 20 million - then the odds are favourable.

What it boils down to, for me at least, is this. If somebody wants to remake a film I like then go ahead. If I enjoy it then great. If I don't then my original version will still be waiting there for me. And in the meantime just let me get on with satisfying that little part of me that knows Peter Weller was and always will be Robocop.

And he didn't look like a bloody power ranger either.

Ade

In the Beginning

I'm easily distracted.

This afternoon I went online with the intention of shopping for some videogames. Within half an hour I ended up on a personal web site I'd initiated through Google sites over a year ago - and never done anything with - and started to write something on it. Midway through that I noticed Googles' Blogger and suddenly decided it would be a good idea for me to start one.

Why? I don't know.

I like writing. I'm not particularly good at it but I enjoy it. Also Twitter is partly to blame. I joined it in a similarly random surfing session some time ago but it's only recently I've really started to use it. It's becoming addictive but I sometimes struggle with the 140 character limit. Actually, make that often. One option would be to bombard strangers with multiple numerically sequenced tweets to get your message across. A link to a blog post may be slightly less annoying.

Whatever the reasons behind it, here it is. Future topics will definitely not include the meaning of life, religious philosophies or sports of any size, shape or form. It will cover videogames, films, tv shows, humorous things and assorted other random topics that catch my eye from time to time. Occasionally I may rant a bit, frequently I will moan about stuff and now and again I may even praise something. I may also put up a few random pictures of things I like, hence the DVD cover below.

 

I've just realised I haven't said anything about who I am. Well, since I've spent far too much time perfecting my Twitter bio I may as well give it another airing here ... "New father, old gamer, viewer of film and tv, fan of John Carpenter & sci-fi stuff. Mostly harmless. Hate sport. Roll on #GTAV and wireless electricity."  That pretty much covers the essentials. Oh and please excuse the hashtag.

Well, for better or worse, the ball is rolling. If you care to find me on Twitter I'm @theademartin but for now, if you'll excuse me, I have some videogames to buy.

Ade