Ah, so it's May, and that means that yep, I'm busy taking time to hop on the bike for a helluva ride on June 9th and 10th - the MS 150. Yep, 150 miles in two days. Sound impossible? Well, I did it last year, so no, it's not impossible. It does, however, require a bit of work, pain, and self-inflicted torture of riding my bike over a whole lotta terrain that I would otherwise prefer to avoid. BUT, it's going well. Not as well as I'd like, but then, when is it ever perfect??? Never, as far as I can recall. But this weekend was a decent bit of riding - pretty much all of it good. A few lessons were learned from it, however:
1) ALWAYS prefuel. Yeah, I was stupid and didn't prefuel on one ride, and wondered why I was tired after about 30 miles. It didn't occur to me that I'd only eaten an apple and a handful of m&m's that day.
2) Chamois butter (or equivelent) always a necessity.
3) Biofreeze: also a necessity, and just some really nice stuff.
4) After riding with some friends, I realized I'm in better shape than I thought compared to some of them.
5) cycling tans are funny-looking, but are testament to the work put in.
6) Contrary to what my father believes, my saddle is not a torture device.
Speaking of Dad (see what I did there?) - Mine said the best thing today:
"If you live an extra 10% longer for drinking coffee, and 5% for drinking a nip of whiskey, and another 3-4% for having a glass of red wine, between that and all the other things that I do, I figure I'm never gonna die. I've got it solved!"
Dad, you crack me up, Dude. I look forward to helping you explore this theory!!!!!
Some other random coolness: looking forward to moving soon. A new house with workshop space for my house-mate and I, plus some entertaining space, as well s a nice-sized "Pittsburgh-level" yard. Covered porch, the works. It's a nice place. Hopefully, we'll be able to start moving on Monday!
Looking forward to a summer of camping, biking, and a lot of other things!!!
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
What makes a good film?
Since who knows when, America has had a thing for the movies. The Fat Kid is no exception. Now, I'm not going to say what you should and shouldn't waste your time and money on - I'm not professional critic and I'm not getting paid to do that. No, this is about all the things that I think movies should be - those qualities they should possess in order to make them adequate for viewing. Just because a film doesn't match up to my criteria doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. So, here it is: The Fat Kid's Guide to Film Adequacy.
1) Story. It's about story-telling, and so there must be at least an interesting story to tell. If you don't have an interesting story, why would anyone want to go see it? For that matter, why would they pay to go see it? At $10 per primetime film, that's just crazy. And by having a story, I mean a real one, not one that's a backdrop for a whole bunch of explosions, and by the end, we're supposed to believe that life finally got good for the main character because of 300 explosions ans near-death experiences. For example, let's take the Indiana Jones franchise. The trio of films was great. Indy's life was always just a little tough. It wasn't perfect, etc. The last film??? Ugh. NO REAL STORYLINE, and then the ending was stolen from the first "X-Files" film. Sad.
2) Special effects and make-up at a minimum. Unless the goal is to completely turn an actor into something alien unto human beings (think orcs, wookiees, trolls, other aliens, etc) we really just wanna see the actor do their thing. Yes, some makeup is essential, and should not be discouraged completely - but the point is: DON'T blow the budget on making a picturesque movie that lacks substance. Makep can't act. Neither can explosions. In fact, all most explosions seem to do is create shrapnel that hurts the main character somehow - thus requiring more makeup and/or fake blood.
3) Proper use of technology. Studios are very fond of showing off their new toys. Just look at Pixar. Hey, the do some cool things with those toys, and even though some of the characters are cute and funny...I'm still listening to Tom Hanks, John Goodman, Tim Allen, and Billy Crystal. Oh, and John Ratzenberger, whom I still have to stop and think of his name rather than call him Cliff Claven. Disney used to make a LOT of films for kids and families using real actors. In fact, it was almost all their stuff. Can we get back to this, please?
4) OK, this one is the biggie, and really, the rest of them all feed into it. RUN TIME. No film (other than kids movies and the occasional documentary) should EVER be shorter than two hours. There's a VERY little bit of leeway on this one. I mean, if a film runs 117 minutes instead of 120, ok. It happens. The 120-minute mark is really an "-ish" statement. Sometimes, there will be a complete story told in 110 minutes. BUT, when those sorts of things happen, usually, the story is sound, the tech is under control, and the special effects are reigned in as well - they simply ran out of story to tell, and rather than belabor the point, simply chose to move the story on to its conclusion. MOST of the time, these films that just fall short of the 120-minute rule are "OK" films. They are not heralded as "good" or "great." At the multi-millions of dollars used to make movies....would another 7-12 minutes of film REALLY be all that much to ask to flesh out a story in full? Isn't most of that on the cutting room floor, anyway??
I know what you're saying: "But there's not all that much to tell of __________(insert name of short film here)!" Precisely the point. Not all stories should be made into films. It requires good judgment, and that judgment should focus on what makes good movies, as compared to what Hollywood thinks teenagers want to see the most. Wait one minute: WHY ARE WE LETTING TEENAGERS DICTATE ANYTHING? I know, I know....because "it sells." Yes, 14 yr old boys want to see just how much leg and midriff they can see from the latest hottie of the month. Trust me, they see enough as it is, they don't need it in HD-3D-with Dolby 5.1 surround sound. They're boys. They'll figure it out. But you know something else? If you start telling good stories again, to completion, leaving little to nothing out, and that's what we allow our kids to be exposed to, we just might end up teaching the next generation how to actually appreciate the art of cinema rather than the art of demolition.
OH, and please....can we STOP making re-makes? HUH? Are we really running that low in the barrel that we have to remake Footloose? Can't you just tell a different generation-gap social commentary story that strongly parallels the film but maybe without dancing and such, and call it something different? PLEASE? That's for another post, though.
Thanks for Reading,
The Fat Kid
1) Story. It's about story-telling, and so there must be at least an interesting story to tell. If you don't have an interesting story, why would anyone want to go see it? For that matter, why would they pay to go see it? At $10 per primetime film, that's just crazy. And by having a story, I mean a real one, not one that's a backdrop for a whole bunch of explosions, and by the end, we're supposed to believe that life finally got good for the main character because of 300 explosions ans near-death experiences. For example, let's take the Indiana Jones franchise. The trio of films was great. Indy's life was always just a little tough. It wasn't perfect, etc. The last film??? Ugh. NO REAL STORYLINE, and then the ending was stolen from the first "X-Files" film. Sad.
2) Special effects and make-up at a minimum. Unless the goal is to completely turn an actor into something alien unto human beings (think orcs, wookiees, trolls, other aliens, etc) we really just wanna see the actor do their thing. Yes, some makeup is essential, and should not be discouraged completely - but the point is: DON'T blow the budget on making a picturesque movie that lacks substance. Makep can't act. Neither can explosions. In fact, all most explosions seem to do is create shrapnel that hurts the main character somehow - thus requiring more makeup and/or fake blood.
3) Proper use of technology. Studios are very fond of showing off their new toys. Just look at Pixar. Hey, the do some cool things with those toys, and even though some of the characters are cute and funny...I'm still listening to Tom Hanks, John Goodman, Tim Allen, and Billy Crystal. Oh, and John Ratzenberger, whom I still have to stop and think of his name rather than call him Cliff Claven. Disney used to make a LOT of films for kids and families using real actors. In fact, it was almost all their stuff. Can we get back to this, please?
4) OK, this one is the biggie, and really, the rest of them all feed into it. RUN TIME. No film (other than kids movies and the occasional documentary) should EVER be shorter than two hours. There's a VERY little bit of leeway on this one. I mean, if a film runs 117 minutes instead of 120, ok. It happens. The 120-minute mark is really an "-ish" statement. Sometimes, there will be a complete story told in 110 minutes. BUT, when those sorts of things happen, usually, the story is sound, the tech is under control, and the special effects are reigned in as well - they simply ran out of story to tell, and rather than belabor the point, simply chose to move the story on to its conclusion. MOST of the time, these films that just fall short of the 120-minute rule are "OK" films. They are not heralded as "good" or "great." At the multi-millions of dollars used to make movies....would another 7-12 minutes of film REALLY be all that much to ask to flesh out a story in full? Isn't most of that on the cutting room floor, anyway??
I know what you're saying: "But there's not all that much to tell of __________(insert name of short film here)!" Precisely the point. Not all stories should be made into films. It requires good judgment, and that judgment should focus on what makes good movies, as compared to what Hollywood thinks teenagers want to see the most. Wait one minute: WHY ARE WE LETTING TEENAGERS DICTATE ANYTHING? I know, I know....because "it sells." Yes, 14 yr old boys want to see just how much leg and midriff they can see from the latest hottie of the month. Trust me, they see enough as it is, they don't need it in HD-3D-with Dolby 5.1 surround sound. They're boys. They'll figure it out. But you know something else? If you start telling good stories again, to completion, leaving little to nothing out, and that's what we allow our kids to be exposed to, we just might end up teaching the next generation how to actually appreciate the art of cinema rather than the art of demolition.
OH, and please....can we STOP making re-makes? HUH? Are we really running that low in the barrel that we have to remake Footloose? Can't you just tell a different generation-gap social commentary story that strongly parallels the film but maybe without dancing and such, and call it something different? PLEASE? That's for another post, though.
Thanks for Reading,
The Fat Kid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)