Friday is going to be insane/epic/amazing/incredible/possibly the best day ever (until something comes along and has the same effect hahaha)
But aside from all that it is going to give me a sense of achievement and spur me on to do more and to know that I can grab goals and hopefully reach that ultimate one that is starting to look a little more attainable.
Big reveal is coming probably Friday some time, might be Saturday, it depends on how busy I am over the weekend. I'll try and squeeze in some internetting haha.
Stay tuned
Monday, 26 October 2009
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Not An Apology
“Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention. Stephen, as I pointed out in the article was a charming and sweet man who entertained millions.
“However, the point of my column-which, I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read – was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all. Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death – out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger – did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.
“The entire matter of his sudden death seemed to have been handled with undue haste when lessons could have been learned. On this subject, one very important point. When I wrote that ‘he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine’, I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger. Not to the fact of his homosexuality. In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.
“In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”
How is this in anyway showing sympathy and remorse for the hateful words that were published by this vile woman I will never understand. Let’s look at the points she makes in her “statement”
“Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention. Stephen, as I pointed out in the article was a charming and sweet man who entertained millions.
Intention or not, she may have said he was a charming and sweet man, however she also stated that he was a pointless decorative member of the band who couldn’t sing a note – missed that one out didn’t she.
“However, the point of my column-which, I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read – was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all. Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death – out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger – did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.”
Absolute and trivial BS. She appears to think she’s being remorseful by presenting her article as being her own opinion, that may be so, however to assume that people haven’t read the article thoroughly, which anyone who is going to complain will have done, since there needs to be an understanding about what you are complaining about. She still goes on to maintain that she believes that it is unlikely he would have died had he not have gone out that evening, also once again insinuating and presuming that Stephen had spent the entire night taking illegal substances,which is conjecture and grounds for libel. Not forgetting the fact that while an opinion piece, she has blatant disregard for the facts, which in this case are that he died of natural causes and there was nothing in his system that would have had any bearing on his health that would have provoked or assissted in his death.
“The entire matter of his sudden death seemed to have been handled with undue haste when lessons could have been learned. On this subject, one very important point. When I wrote that ‘he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine’, I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger. Not to the fact of his homosexuality. In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.”
Again ignoring the facts, yes we can not say what went on behind closed doors, however to specualte into his private life is breeching the standard and basic codes of conduct. To outright say that he was taking x-amount of drugs and being overly promiscuous is a damning accusation and one that holds no ground of truth. This whole part of her supposed apology still holds disregard for her actions, rather than apologising for what she wrote and how she worded the piece, she is attempting to prove that she was right in stating what she had, again it was proven by medical officials that there was nothing in his system that could have caused his death, it was a tragic but very natural health issue, this woman seems to be deluded into thinking that there was something else going on, can she not even wrap her head around what is fact?
“In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”
This last part, there was no heavy orchestration, what it was was in fact people disgusted and disturbed that someone in her line of work could be so hateful and disregard everything that has been said about the case. Ignoring official facts and findings in order to communicate her own issues surrounding his death. Clearly she cannot handle the fact that there was nothing suspicious or sinister about his death, which makes her a troubled and very sad individual.
As for it being extreme to suggest her article has homophobic and bigoted undertones? I just have no words, none at all. Read it and tell me if the comments are undertones, to me it was a blatant and obvious attack.
Jan Moir is a disgraceful and sick individual who seems unable to take responsibility for her actions, I just hope that the friends and family of Stephen find solace in knowing that thousands of people respect them for their actions and keep them in their thoughts.
“However, the point of my column-which, I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read – was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all. Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death – out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger – did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.
“The entire matter of his sudden death seemed to have been handled with undue haste when lessons could have been learned. On this subject, one very important point. When I wrote that ‘he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine’, I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger. Not to the fact of his homosexuality. In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.
“In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”
How is this in anyway showing sympathy and remorse for the hateful words that were published by this vile woman I will never understand. Let’s look at the points she makes in her “statement”
“Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention. Stephen, as I pointed out in the article was a charming and sweet man who entertained millions.
Intention or not, she may have said he was a charming and sweet man, however she also stated that he was a pointless decorative member of the band who couldn’t sing a note – missed that one out didn’t she.
“However, the point of my column-which, I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read – was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all. Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death – out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger – did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.”
Absolute and trivial BS. She appears to think she’s being remorseful by presenting her article as being her own opinion, that may be so, however to assume that people haven’t read the article thoroughly, which anyone who is going to complain will have done, since there needs to be an understanding about what you are complaining about. She still goes on to maintain that she believes that it is unlikely he would have died had he not have gone out that evening, also once again insinuating and presuming that Stephen had spent the entire night taking illegal substances,which is conjecture and grounds for libel. Not forgetting the fact that while an opinion piece, she has blatant disregard for the facts, which in this case are that he died of natural causes and there was nothing in his system that would have had any bearing on his health that would have provoked or assissted in his death.
“The entire matter of his sudden death seemed to have been handled with undue haste when lessons could have been learned. On this subject, one very important point. When I wrote that ‘he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine’, I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger. Not to the fact of his homosexuality. In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.”
Again ignoring the facts, yes we can not say what went on behind closed doors, however to specualte into his private life is breeching the standard and basic codes of conduct. To outright say that he was taking x-amount of drugs and being overly promiscuous is a damning accusation and one that holds no ground of truth. This whole part of her supposed apology still holds disregard for her actions, rather than apologising for what she wrote and how she worded the piece, she is attempting to prove that she was right in stating what she had, again it was proven by medical officials that there was nothing in his system that could have caused his death, it was a tragic but very natural health issue, this woman seems to be deluded into thinking that there was something else going on, can she not even wrap her head around what is fact?
“In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”
This last part, there was no heavy orchestration, what it was was in fact people disgusted and disturbed that someone in her line of work could be so hateful and disregard everything that has been said about the case. Ignoring official facts and findings in order to communicate her own issues surrounding his death. Clearly she cannot handle the fact that there was nothing suspicious or sinister about his death, which makes her a troubled and very sad individual.
As for it being extreme to suggest her article has homophobic and bigoted undertones? I just have no words, none at all. Read it and tell me if the comments are undertones, to me it was a blatant and obvious attack.
Jan Moir is a disgraceful and sick individual who seems unable to take responsibility for her actions, I just hope that the friends and family of Stephen find solace in knowing that thousands of people respect them for their actions and keep them in their thoughts.
Friday, 16 October 2009
Generic Response Of PCC Regarding Jan Moir Complaints
Dear _______________
Thank you for sending us your complaint about the Daily Mail article on the subject of the death of Stephen Gately. We have received numerous complaints about this matter.
I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gately's bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish.
We require the direct involvement of affected parties because the PCC process can have a public outcome and it would be discourteous for the Commission to publish information relating to individuals without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, doing so might unwittingly add to any intrusion. Additionally, one of the PCC's roles is dispute resolution, and we would need contact with the affected party in order to determine what would be an acceptable means of settling a complaint.
On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and wemay not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this.
Press Complaints Commission
Thank you for sending us your complaint about the Daily Mail article on the subject of the death of Stephen Gately. We have received numerous complaints about this matter.
I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gately's bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish.
We require the direct involvement of affected parties because the PCC process can have a public outcome and it would be discourteous for the Commission to publish information relating to individuals without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, doing so might unwittingly add to any intrusion. Additionally, one of the PCC's roles is dispute resolution, and we would need contact with the affected party in order to determine what would be an acceptable means of settling a complaint.
On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and wemay not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this.
Press Complaints Commission
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Journey
Marching on.
Unfaltering, unchallenged.
Over hills and down through the valleys within my mind,
That are indecisive and uncoherrent.
Wonder if I will be able to justify anything that I do,
Or do not.
Regardless.
Nothing ventured nothing gained,
Or so I’m told.
But how long should it take to get to where I want to be.
A top the highest white peak in the sky,
Looking down at the road I’ve travelled.
An acomplished smile.
I have made it.
Unfaltering, unchallenged.
Over hills and down through the valleys within my mind,
That are indecisive and uncoherrent.
Wonder if I will be able to justify anything that I do,
Or do not.
Regardless.
Nothing ventured nothing gained,
Or so I’m told.
But how long should it take to get to where I want to be.
A top the highest white peak in the sky,
Looking down at the road I’ve travelled.
An acomplished smile.
I have made it.
Saturday, 22 August 2009
So...
I'm a little weirded out by my recent ability to guess things correctly.
Not silly educational guess work, but random stuff.
Like I have been saying that my boys in a1 will eventually get together again and do something soon, since it's been like 10 years since they formed and I maintained that I would be expecting something to be brewing soon with the news of an official myspace being created a few months back, and oh what is this? 4 gigs in Norway?
Granted its not here but my spidey sense are tingling saying that after that, they will probably do something over here, which I am looking forward to (prove me right boys).
Another is the Breaking Dawn film - now me and my friend were discussing this last week, and she was like there's far too much stuff that needs to be in the film, how will they fit it in. I said if they don't chop it to pieces they'll probably do a Harry Potter and split it in to 2 films.
And what is this, rumour has it they are indeed going to be doing it in 2 parts.
I'm good.
Now I hear they are putting Ghostfacers out as its own show, which if true, could mean that AJ's character is leaving/being killed off in csiNY - which is not right at all. I would prefer Lindsay to be killed off from the show, my Danny/Flack hasn't been right since her and Danny got it together.
SIGH
I'm rambling but its 1.30am so I feel I'm excused.
Not silly educational guess work, but random stuff.
Like I have been saying that my boys in a1 will eventually get together again and do something soon, since it's been like 10 years since they formed and I maintained that I would be expecting something to be brewing soon with the news of an official myspace being created a few months back, and oh what is this? 4 gigs in Norway?
Granted its not here but my spidey sense are tingling saying that after that, they will probably do something over here, which I am looking forward to (prove me right boys).
Another is the Breaking Dawn film - now me and my friend were discussing this last week, and she was like there's far too much stuff that needs to be in the film, how will they fit it in. I said if they don't chop it to pieces they'll probably do a Harry Potter and split it in to 2 films.
And what is this, rumour has it they are indeed going to be doing it in 2 parts.
I'm good.
Now I hear they are putting Ghostfacers out as its own show, which if true, could mean that AJ's character is leaving/being killed off in csiNY - which is not right at all. I would prefer Lindsay to be killed off from the show, my Danny/Flack hasn't been right since her and Danny got it together.
SIGH
I'm rambling but its 1.30am so I feel I'm excused.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Controversial - pt2
What amazes me is that young people can have the audacity to comment on something that has the ability to stir up a lot of debate.
They throw away comments such as 'its not that bad', 'get over it' and 'they can do what they want' without actually understanding what is so wrong about what they have done.
It's easy to get into the debate about why a photograph that almost recreates the moment when Jackie-O cradled JFK's body in their motorcade after he was shot in the head can be so untasteful and wrong, but when you try and justify that it is art without knowing what you're talking about any argument you have instantly loses validity.
Fact: Four presidents were assassinated during their term in office:
Abraham Lincoln
James Garfield
William McKinley
John F Kennedy
Fiction: Nixon was assassinated – he was not
If you are going to use Nixon as an argument please know what you're talking about.
Comparing his assassination (JFK) to Lennon amongst others is a stupid thing to do, they were very different – the most notable was that JFK was murdered on Live TV. Yes there have been movies about Lennons death, but they are all based upon public record – police interviews and photographs and experts speculating. The only one I can see with any validity is the one where it is told from MDC's point of view – it puts you inside his head, and it is based on his account of the event.
No one will ever know what compelled someone to kill JFK – the one person convicted was killed before his trial and the other man that they arrested in connection never formerly confessed to his part in the assassination, so it is still unanswered.
If you don't educate yourself on what happened then you don't have a balanced view, sure you weren't there but the footage is still available and until you see it you can't comprehend the impact it had and still has on people. Ignoring something because someone from a band has done something to promote a comic book (even indirectly) is an incredibly stupid and ignorant thing to do, mostly because unknown to you, this did directly impact what is around you today.
There are a lot of what ifs, many of which no one can speculate about.
What you need to ask yourself is:
'If it was someone I admired and respected (musician/actor/president etc) and they were on TV and were killed live in front of my eyes, what would I think if someone produced a similar photograph depicting the moment that most people would remember forever?'
They throw away comments such as 'its not that bad', 'get over it' and 'they can do what they want' without actually understanding what is so wrong about what they have done.
It's easy to get into the debate about why a photograph that almost recreates the moment when Jackie-O cradled JFK's body in their motorcade after he was shot in the head can be so untasteful and wrong, but when you try and justify that it is art without knowing what you're talking about any argument you have instantly loses validity.
Fact: Four presidents were assassinated during their term in office:
Abraham Lincoln
James Garfield
William McKinley
John F Kennedy
Fiction: Nixon was assassinated – he was not
If you are going to use Nixon as an argument please know what you're talking about.
Comparing his assassination (JFK) to Lennon amongst others is a stupid thing to do, they were very different – the most notable was that JFK was murdered on Live TV. Yes there have been movies about Lennons death, but they are all based upon public record – police interviews and photographs and experts speculating. The only one I can see with any validity is the one where it is told from MDC's point of view – it puts you inside his head, and it is based on his account of the event.
No one will ever know what compelled someone to kill JFK – the one person convicted was killed before his trial and the other man that they arrested in connection never formerly confessed to his part in the assassination, so it is still unanswered.
If you don't educate yourself on what happened then you don't have a balanced view, sure you weren't there but the footage is still available and until you see it you can't comprehend the impact it had and still has on people. Ignoring something because someone from a band has done something to promote a comic book (even indirectly) is an incredibly stupid and ignorant thing to do, mostly because unknown to you, this did directly impact what is around you today.
There are a lot of what ifs, many of which no one can speculate about.
What you need to ask yourself is:
'If it was someone I admired and respected (musician/actor/president etc) and they were on TV and were killed live in front of my eyes, what would I think if someone produced a similar photograph depicting the moment that most people would remember forever?'
Monday, 17 August 2009
I Think
Therefore I am.
Ha no sorry random quote thrown out there.
I'm thinking of embarking on a project. Not sure what yet, possibly a music-based/playlist type thing of songs I think sum up/are perfect for various situations.
Each list composed of 10 songs - maybe one list per week and a compilation at the end of the month - it needs work I know...
Which also reminds me I have a rather insane need to finish my Supernatural/Wizard of Oz story - I sense a few more chapters til completion but I should upload chapter 5...
Tangent but oh well
Also - my boys (a1) have officially announced they are getting back together - exclusively for 4 shows in Norway, but Mark did state in teh press conference that he was looking forward to playing the first shows in Norway, which, because he doesn't lie too well would mean they they are planning or are thinking about doing more as a group. Which is a glorious thing - means I can probably finally get in on an interview with them together (probably minus Paul, which is a sad thing but I'll take it), have to hit Mark up on that one, I'm seriously not past begging hahaha
Wondering if I can pitch an email interview to another person too, I finally found a way to contact him, so we'll see, maybe wait and buy the book first - might see if Waterstones can order it, if not Amazon I'm looking to you for swift and cheapy postage costs hahaha...
Should also make those lists for who to mail about information of forthcoming work, eh I have a bit of time...
Wow this turned out longer than I expected, it happens. Hopefully something more coherrent will appear at some point.
Ha no sorry random quote thrown out there.
I'm thinking of embarking on a project. Not sure what yet, possibly a music-based/playlist type thing of songs I think sum up/are perfect for various situations.
Each list composed of 10 songs - maybe one list per week and a compilation at the end of the month - it needs work I know...
Which also reminds me I have a rather insane need to finish my Supernatural/Wizard of Oz story - I sense a few more chapters til completion but I should upload chapter 5...
Tangent but oh well
Also - my boys (a1) have officially announced they are getting back together - exclusively for 4 shows in Norway, but Mark did state in teh press conference that he was looking forward to playing the first shows in Norway, which, because he doesn't lie too well would mean they they are planning or are thinking about doing more as a group. Which is a glorious thing - means I can probably finally get in on an interview with them together (probably minus Paul, which is a sad thing but I'll take it), have to hit Mark up on that one, I'm seriously not past begging hahaha
Wondering if I can pitch an email interview to another person too, I finally found a way to contact him, so we'll see, maybe wait and buy the book first - might see if Waterstones can order it, if not Amazon I'm looking to you for swift and cheapy postage costs hahaha...
Should also make those lists for who to mail about information of forthcoming work, eh I have a bit of time...
Wow this turned out longer than I expected, it happens. Hopefully something more coherrent will appear at some point.
Controversial
So apparently there is some debate as to whether this photo is art or controversial.
Recreated for promotional purposes it portrays JFK and Jackie-O when JFK was assinated.
I personally do not see the problem with it, to me it is no different to someone recreating a war scene or any other historical issue from the past.
It is actually a beautiful photo. Granted it is showing a great tragedy, the composition is beautiful.
I think rather than it being controversial it highlights a historical moment in time that many people may not know a lot about, and anything that brings a bit of historical awareness to people is a good thing.
I'm rambling and am probably making no sense, but I'll probably have a more coherrent statement about it some other time haha
Rant That Occurs Often - 1
I was having a discussion the other day about the movie 'Twilight' and the forthcoming 'New Moon' and how rather than making things up as the writers go along, they could have chosen better scenes from the book to include.
Now I'm not informed about Twilight. I have no knowledge of what happens at all in the books. Admittedly I have watched the movie twice now, and I still feel the same way about it.
I explained that because the book is so long, and some of the key moments are probably in the less exciting parts then they have to keep the story going and tell the information, so naturally they will change the storey to fit as they adapt it into a screenplay, mostly because of time restraint.
That said, my friend made a good point. That there was not enough dialogue between the two main characters in the movie. And she was right.
It was all brooding looks and angst and the occasional grunt.
Which led me on to something I read on a message board about the actor Misha Collins and how he would make a good John Constantine – because Keanu was as good as an oak tree – or something like that.
This got me thinking.
While I don't deny that yes Misha would give a good portrayal of John Constantine, I don't think it would top Keanu's performance. It's one of his best performances of his career. Trust me, I have seen all of his movies (aside from the 2 or 3 I can't find on DVD or video) and own them, so I would like to think that I have a rather extensive knowledge about his acting abilities.
This again brought me to thinking about him as an actor, after my friend and I declared our love for the 'Bill & Ted' movies. No one else could have played Ted like Keanu did.
And I think that is the problem, I think whether subconsciously or not critics always perceive him as that guy from that movie. They can't get beyond the 'meat-headed' persona and don't realise that he is as talented as the next big actor. If he wasn't he wouldn't have had the career he has had.
Now admittedly the roles he chooses do tend to revolve around the stoic almost emotionless character, and I think that this is where he tends to fall a little. Because he is giving the role with the sort of persona he would identify with a character, critics tend not to see that really he is doing what he does – acting. They see him as a stoic, emotionless and wooden actor who wouldn't know a good performance if it hit him in the face.
That is the critic's biggest mistake, because he can play those stoic characters extremely well.
I do think he should extend his genre's, he has had great success in his roles in films of the non-science fiction kind. Personally I enjoy seeing him in more light and altogether romantic type films, films that you can get your teeth in to. And he has pulled out some outstanding performances over the years. Edging on 60 films, we know not all of them are going to be incredible, but it is a great sight to see when you put one on to watch and BOOM he brings it.
People over look his past roles, and some of his greatest, and to me they shouldn't. Many pass the film up because he's in it and they assume he'll be wooden. He won't and they shouldn't not choose a movie based on that, yes some have been poor but there have been a few gems that make you forget about those.
For me some of his stand out roles were in these films:
Sweet November
Hardball
The Replacements
Bill & Ted
The Gift
Constantine
Speed
Rivers Edge
The Lake House
The Last Time I Committed Suicide
The Matrix
Feeling Minnesota
The Watcher
Some are quite obvious, some not so. Whatever way you look at it, it's not hard to see that he is talented. He chooses the roles that he feels drawn too, ones that he is passionate about doing, and he makes sure he plays the role well.
You can't fault him for that.
Many forget that he is not Ted. He is a diverse actor, who is misunderstood at the best of times.
Give him a chance before you judge. Don't judge on one or 2 movies, expand your knowledge. You may just be surprised.
Now I'm not informed about Twilight. I have no knowledge of what happens at all in the books. Admittedly I have watched the movie twice now, and I still feel the same way about it.
I explained that because the book is so long, and some of the key moments are probably in the less exciting parts then they have to keep the story going and tell the information, so naturally they will change the storey to fit as they adapt it into a screenplay, mostly because of time restraint.
That said, my friend made a good point. That there was not enough dialogue between the two main characters in the movie. And she was right.
It was all brooding looks and angst and the occasional grunt.
Which led me on to something I read on a message board about the actor Misha Collins and how he would make a good John Constantine – because Keanu was as good as an oak tree – or something like that.
This got me thinking.
While I don't deny that yes Misha would give a good portrayal of John Constantine, I don't think it would top Keanu's performance. It's one of his best performances of his career. Trust me, I have seen all of his movies (aside from the 2 or 3 I can't find on DVD or video) and own them, so I would like to think that I have a rather extensive knowledge about his acting abilities.
This again brought me to thinking about him as an actor, after my friend and I declared our love for the 'Bill & Ted' movies. No one else could have played Ted like Keanu did.
And I think that is the problem, I think whether subconsciously or not critics always perceive him as that guy from that movie. They can't get beyond the 'meat-headed' persona and don't realise that he is as talented as the next big actor. If he wasn't he wouldn't have had the career he has had.
Now admittedly the roles he chooses do tend to revolve around the stoic almost emotionless character, and I think that this is where he tends to fall a little. Because he is giving the role with the sort of persona he would identify with a character, critics tend not to see that really he is doing what he does – acting. They see him as a stoic, emotionless and wooden actor who wouldn't know a good performance if it hit him in the face.
That is the critic's biggest mistake, because he can play those stoic characters extremely well.
I do think he should extend his genre's, he has had great success in his roles in films of the non-science fiction kind. Personally I enjoy seeing him in more light and altogether romantic type films, films that you can get your teeth in to. And he has pulled out some outstanding performances over the years. Edging on 60 films, we know not all of them are going to be incredible, but it is a great sight to see when you put one on to watch and BOOM he brings it.
People over look his past roles, and some of his greatest, and to me they shouldn't. Many pass the film up because he's in it and they assume he'll be wooden. He won't and they shouldn't not choose a movie based on that, yes some have been poor but there have been a few gems that make you forget about those.
For me some of his stand out roles were in these films:
Sweet November
Hardball
The Replacements
Bill & Ted
The Gift
Constantine
Speed
Rivers Edge
The Lake House
The Last Time I Committed Suicide
The Matrix
Feeling Minnesota
The Watcher
Some are quite obvious, some not so. Whatever way you look at it, it's not hard to see that he is talented. He chooses the roles that he feels drawn too, ones that he is passionate about doing, and he makes sure he plays the role well.
You can't fault him for that.
Many forget that he is not Ted. He is a diverse actor, who is misunderstood at the best of times.
Give him a chance before you judge. Don't judge on one or 2 movies, expand your knowledge. You may just be surprised.
Friday, 31 July 2009
Watch Out! Chipmonks About!
It makes me laugh when I read in the papers about so called 'Killer' chipmonks invading Britain. Really it's laughable.
All these stories about people being bitten by them is rather amusing.
Granted although they are related to the rodent family, they are more agressive than rats and mice. They're more of a predatory animal, so naturally if they feel threatened they are going to to turn around to a human and gnaw on your person.
Doesn't mean that they are killers, it just means they're smarter than you.
The fact that people claim to have been bitten by these animals begs the question, what were you doing. Chipmonks are creatures that will fight for their food and their safety and their home, so if you're sitting there with some chow or it seems like you are invading their territory naturally they're going to defend and attempt to take said chow from you.
I saw chipmonks at a safari park not so long ago, and as cute as they are they look like mean mo-fo's so let's go through Gemma's steps to not get bitten by one.
Step 1: If you see a chipmonk do not be alarmed, these animals can smell fear**, this gives them the upper hand
Step 2: If you have any food stuff in your hand, whether it sweet or savoury, surrender it, because lets face it it's easier to give it up and get something else than have a chipmonk eat you
Step 3: Keep your eye on the animal and slowly move away. Removing yourself from the animal and also its probably territory will prevent the chipmonk needing to bite you in defense
Step 4: Never approach a chipmonk. This is key in keeping them away from your extremities
Step 5: If a chipmonk bites you, do not panic. These animals have jaws of steel and the more you panic and fling your limbs around, the tighter they will grip. Relax, take deep breaths and stay still. It will be over in seconds.
(** Please note this is a lie as different species can NOT smell fear on each other eg. A horse cannot smell fear on a human etc)
Follow these steps and you will be able to lead a killer chipmonk fear free life.
However make sure you're tetanus shot is up to date and also you know how long you have to protect yourself against rabies.
Other wise enjoy the rest of the summer.
All these stories about people being bitten by them is rather amusing.
Granted although they are related to the rodent family, they are more agressive than rats and mice. They're more of a predatory animal, so naturally if they feel threatened they are going to to turn around to a human and gnaw on your person.
Doesn't mean that they are killers, it just means they're smarter than you.
The fact that people claim to have been bitten by these animals begs the question, what were you doing. Chipmonks are creatures that will fight for their food and their safety and their home, so if you're sitting there with some chow or it seems like you are invading their territory naturally they're going to defend and attempt to take said chow from you.
I saw chipmonks at a safari park not so long ago, and as cute as they are they look like mean mo-fo's so let's go through Gemma's steps to not get bitten by one.
Step 1: If you see a chipmonk do not be alarmed, these animals can smell fear**, this gives them the upper hand
Step 2: If you have any food stuff in your hand, whether it sweet or savoury, surrender it, because lets face it it's easier to give it up and get something else than have a chipmonk eat you
Step 3: Keep your eye on the animal and slowly move away. Removing yourself from the animal and also its probably territory will prevent the chipmonk needing to bite you in defense
Step 4: Never approach a chipmonk. This is key in keeping them away from your extremities
Step 5: If a chipmonk bites you, do not panic. These animals have jaws of steel and the more you panic and fling your limbs around, the tighter they will grip. Relax, take deep breaths and stay still. It will be over in seconds.
(** Please note this is a lie as different species can NOT smell fear on each other eg. A horse cannot smell fear on a human etc)
Follow these steps and you will be able to lead a killer chipmonk fear free life.
However make sure you're tetanus shot is up to date and also you know how long you have to protect yourself against rabies.
Other wise enjoy the rest of the summer.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
The Day The Music Died (a little more)
I recently became aware that Pete Wentz (he of Fall Out Boy fame) has succumbed to releasing an EP on his Decaydance label by a band called Millionaires.
Who pray tell are these Millionaires? They are three girls who figured that an abundance of synthetic pre-programmed keyboard melodies and talking over the top of said synthetic melodies would be an incredible idea. Which in reality creates something so overly ridiculous, you would like to stab your own eyes out with something blunt, because the sound is so atrocious.
There has been a lot of things said recently because many bands have spoken out against this trio while they have played Warped tour. Most notably Hayley Williams, lead vocalist of the band Paramore. She had some words to say about the band, which has led to a split in opinion – should she really have the audacity to state publicly how she feels about a band who are on the same management roster? Should other bands lash out at others who are making music?
I believe that when people such as this trio are allowed or are given the chance to rise up onto a public platform then people should definitely speak out about how they feel. The more notable question however is not why they have been granted this opportunity to get to where they are but how they came to achieve it. Clearly this has something to do with the (mostly) negative press that the trio have received, and this just shows you how the media works and how the record companies use this to their advantage.
The trio themselves have said that they have no talent for either playing instruments or singing – even saying that people should look up to them. Which for all intent and purposes begs the question why? Their so called music is atrocious, they can't even talk over the melodies without sounding like drowning cats, their lyrics are obscene and blunt and basically something that you could imagine someone like Manson or Eminem wailing on about not teenage girls who have less talent than your average piece of household fluff.
But they are not the only band doing this, there are many others who have lyrics so atrocious and who are so talentless, but who seem to have suckered people in, it makes me quite sad knowing that the music industry has allowed this tripe to filter through into a sort of mainstream platform.
People can criticise boybands and girlbands all they want, but at least you knew that for the most part they had talent (this doesn't mean all of them did, I can think of a few bands who were talentless), they could at least hold a tune, dance and at least their songs had meaning. The rock bands – hair metal, classic rock, whatever. Their lyrics at times or for the most part could be deemed as atrocious, or said to be in the same light as these new “crunkcore” bands. That may be so, but lets not forget that these classic rockers wrote about what they know, they wrote about their own experiences, not about being underage and getting drunk and whatever other tripe people are writing about these days.
Honestly, I find myself becoming more and more disillusioned with the music that is being released these days. It seems that there are only so many artists who continue to make good music. Green Day are one, AC/DC another. Then the likes of Fall Out Boy, who were doing well up until their Folie A Deux record when they completely ruined it and have slowly gone down hill (Wentz I am looking at you for this one). The lyrics of bands such as FOB have slowly, especially for Folie A Deux, they have slowly started falling short. Where once we had multiple layers of analogies laced with a bitter facade and an underlying meaning, we are being given some ridiculous tripe that doesn't hold the same fun and meaning.
Thank God then for people such as Mark Read. I'm holding out hope for him and that he can get back into the charts. He deserves it, he's worked hard at what he does.There's none of this overblown tripe and over produced and ridiculously synthetic music, nor are there any lyrical nuances. It is just him, his music, his words, his thoughts and you get that, you can hear it in the songs. Pure emotion and pure feeling and experience.
That is what music is missing these days, sure you get the occasional song which may be catchy as a cold, and may be nothing but pure fun, but if its done in the right way it is not offensive. Personally I am craving the day when a band sort of sits up and thinks, 'oh we should write about what we know, what we've experienced'. But it's doubtful if anyone will do it with any amount of skill.
So, I suppose in conclusion there isn't a lot any of us can do except hold out hope that things will change, so until then, I would like to suggest that you all go get a copy of or at least listen to Mark Read, and get to know how songs should be written.
Who pray tell are these Millionaires? They are three girls who figured that an abundance of synthetic pre-programmed keyboard melodies and talking over the top of said synthetic melodies would be an incredible idea. Which in reality creates something so overly ridiculous, you would like to stab your own eyes out with something blunt, because the sound is so atrocious.
There has been a lot of things said recently because many bands have spoken out against this trio while they have played Warped tour. Most notably Hayley Williams, lead vocalist of the band Paramore. She had some words to say about the band, which has led to a split in opinion – should she really have the audacity to state publicly how she feels about a band who are on the same management roster? Should other bands lash out at others who are making music?
I believe that when people such as this trio are allowed or are given the chance to rise up onto a public platform then people should definitely speak out about how they feel. The more notable question however is not why they have been granted this opportunity to get to where they are but how they came to achieve it. Clearly this has something to do with the (mostly) negative press that the trio have received, and this just shows you how the media works and how the record companies use this to their advantage.
The trio themselves have said that they have no talent for either playing instruments or singing – even saying that people should look up to them. Which for all intent and purposes begs the question why? Their so called music is atrocious, they can't even talk over the melodies without sounding like drowning cats, their lyrics are obscene and blunt and basically something that you could imagine someone like Manson or Eminem wailing on about not teenage girls who have less talent than your average piece of household fluff.
But they are not the only band doing this, there are many others who have lyrics so atrocious and who are so talentless, but who seem to have suckered people in, it makes me quite sad knowing that the music industry has allowed this tripe to filter through into a sort of mainstream platform.
People can criticise boybands and girlbands all they want, but at least you knew that for the most part they had talent (this doesn't mean all of them did, I can think of a few bands who were talentless), they could at least hold a tune, dance and at least their songs had meaning. The rock bands – hair metal, classic rock, whatever. Their lyrics at times or for the most part could be deemed as atrocious, or said to be in the same light as these new “crunkcore” bands. That may be so, but lets not forget that these classic rockers wrote about what they know, they wrote about their own experiences, not about being underage and getting drunk and whatever other tripe people are writing about these days.
Honestly, I find myself becoming more and more disillusioned with the music that is being released these days. It seems that there are only so many artists who continue to make good music. Green Day are one, AC/DC another. Then the likes of Fall Out Boy, who were doing well up until their Folie A Deux record when they completely ruined it and have slowly gone down hill (Wentz I am looking at you for this one). The lyrics of bands such as FOB have slowly, especially for Folie A Deux, they have slowly started falling short. Where once we had multiple layers of analogies laced with a bitter facade and an underlying meaning, we are being given some ridiculous tripe that doesn't hold the same fun and meaning.
Thank God then for people such as Mark Read. I'm holding out hope for him and that he can get back into the charts. He deserves it, he's worked hard at what he does.There's none of this overblown tripe and over produced and ridiculously synthetic music, nor are there any lyrical nuances. It is just him, his music, his words, his thoughts and you get that, you can hear it in the songs. Pure emotion and pure feeling and experience.
That is what music is missing these days, sure you get the occasional song which may be catchy as a cold, and may be nothing but pure fun, but if its done in the right way it is not offensive. Personally I am craving the day when a band sort of sits up and thinks, 'oh we should write about what we know, what we've experienced'. But it's doubtful if anyone will do it with any amount of skill.
So, I suppose in conclusion there isn't a lot any of us can do except hold out hope that things will change, so until then, I would like to suggest that you all go get a copy of or at least listen to Mark Read, and get to know how songs should be written.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
An Elephant Never Forgets
No matter how much they want to...
I'm optimistic about things, sometimes I would like to see the downside, but somehow something stops me and I always think positive.
Positivity has granted me the chance to do so many things.
I was sitting thinking about some of the things that I've accomplished and the one thing that seems to still allude me is the fact that I have made an aquaintance with someone whom I admired years ago (about 5 years ago to be more precise). That is more than I could have thought possible, and the fact that it seems so normal is surreal.
And also, knowing that I have a chance, through a contact that could possibly lead me to meeting another person I admire, gives me hope that I will achieve an ultimate goal, I'm unsure what that goal will be, but I know that it could happen. At this point its a case of waiting and seeing where the tide takes everything.
But I say, its okay to dream, dreams do come true - and when they do, like elephants in the proverb, you will never forget.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Collaboration Taboo
I read something the other night, it was in response to someone asking about bands co-writing songs - asking if it was okay for bands to do so, does it bring their credibility down?
And I found that a few of the comments people made were rather ignorant.
Many were saying things along the lines of if the band is 'credible' then they should not collaborate with a song writer, and that its really only acceptable to pop musicians, and I really disagree.
I find the whole songwriting process fascinating, the fact that someone can sit and take something that occurs pretty much everyday and create something that is sometimes so powerful is an art, and I think that for people to dismiss it and deem it discrediting is a joke.
Songwriters are an entity in themselves, just because someone is in a band or is a recording artist doesn't mean that they have the ability to produce a decent song, also the fact that the songwriting process includes creating the melody and the music seems to be a moot point, something that people seem to forget about. It's easy to forget that a band may not come up with the hook in a chorus, because for the most part people are talking lyrically.
Many musicians collaborate on the writing process, mostly because it is easier to have help, why would someone pass up the chance to have a stand out line that could have been missed if they didn't have that help? While it is sometimes seen by some fans as misleading if a band collaborates it must be remembered that a recording artist may not possess the skills for the job - some people can write music and not play well, some play well but can't write.
Same goes for lyrics.
I suppose knowing a songwriter on a sort of personal level (aquainted through the industry - he used to be in a favourite band of mine, now he's a solo artist and I went to a show, interviewed him and chatted randomly throughout the night - he's awesome), I have a small insight into the process. Writers take their inspiration from everyday life, from the low points and the high - everything from break ups to a happy time in their lives, and they use these life experiences to craft a song. You can't have a song written by a young band about some of the more detailed life experiences, if you think you do more often than not (because sometimes they can do it but mostly not) they will have collaborated on the song with someone else.
This is not deemed discrediting, if anything it shows that they have faith in their abilities and their music, being able to take a song either fully written or co-written by someone else and making it their own is a definite skill, one that not many possess.
I don't think it's anything shameful to have someone outside of the band or the recording artist to come in and assist during the production of a song. Regardless of the artist, although having said that, many bands co-write songs with each other - does this fall under the same scrutiny? Or is it because they are all in the same band this is deemed okay?
It's not just younger artists, older ones have help too - the writer I mentioned earlier has collaborated with Robin Gibb, Jarvis Cocker, and Rick Astley to name a few.
Jarvis Cocker being the vocalist and frontman of the 'credible' band Pulp, working with songwriters to collaborate on projects? Yes really.
Anyway, I guess the point I'm trying to get across is not to dismiss the collaboration when artists write songs, many of the great songs were co-written with songwriters who worked with the band to guide them and shape the song. Many of the great songs weren't actually written by the artist who sings them.
Either way we must remember that songwriting is a forgotten and occassionally misguided artform, many think that it is easy to just pop an idea out onto paper, but it sometimes takes weeks before a song is perfected, on occassion it would take minutes, it all depends on the situation the writer is in.
Co-writing is not a crime, it is a vital part of the music industry. If we didn't have songwriters in the background assisting with guiding the artists we'd end up with a bunch of the same old songs, sounding the same and all whining about misplaced love or loving someone, which for the record is not great. So people stop complaining that its wrong for any recording artist (aside from those pop-stars) to work with other people, if they didn't you wouldn't have these great songs.
So before you complain about the industry and niggling unimportant things, know what you're talking about.
And I found that a few of the comments people made were rather ignorant.
Many were saying things along the lines of if the band is 'credible' then they should not collaborate with a song writer, and that its really only acceptable to pop musicians, and I really disagree.
I find the whole songwriting process fascinating, the fact that someone can sit and take something that occurs pretty much everyday and create something that is sometimes so powerful is an art, and I think that for people to dismiss it and deem it discrediting is a joke.
Songwriters are an entity in themselves, just because someone is in a band or is a recording artist doesn't mean that they have the ability to produce a decent song, also the fact that the songwriting process includes creating the melody and the music seems to be a moot point, something that people seem to forget about. It's easy to forget that a band may not come up with the hook in a chorus, because for the most part people are talking lyrically.
Many musicians collaborate on the writing process, mostly because it is easier to have help, why would someone pass up the chance to have a stand out line that could have been missed if they didn't have that help? While it is sometimes seen by some fans as misleading if a band collaborates it must be remembered that a recording artist may not possess the skills for the job - some people can write music and not play well, some play well but can't write.
Same goes for lyrics.
I suppose knowing a songwriter on a sort of personal level (aquainted through the industry - he used to be in a favourite band of mine, now he's a solo artist and I went to a show, interviewed him and chatted randomly throughout the night - he's awesome), I have a small insight into the process. Writers take their inspiration from everyday life, from the low points and the high - everything from break ups to a happy time in their lives, and they use these life experiences to craft a song. You can't have a song written by a young band about some of the more detailed life experiences, if you think you do more often than not (because sometimes they can do it but mostly not) they will have collaborated on the song with someone else.
This is not deemed discrediting, if anything it shows that they have faith in their abilities and their music, being able to take a song either fully written or co-written by someone else and making it their own is a definite skill, one that not many possess.
I don't think it's anything shameful to have someone outside of the band or the recording artist to come in and assist during the production of a song. Regardless of the artist, although having said that, many bands co-write songs with each other - does this fall under the same scrutiny? Or is it because they are all in the same band this is deemed okay?
It's not just younger artists, older ones have help too - the writer I mentioned earlier has collaborated with Robin Gibb, Jarvis Cocker, and Rick Astley to name a few.
Jarvis Cocker being the vocalist and frontman of the 'credible' band Pulp, working with songwriters to collaborate on projects? Yes really.
Anyway, I guess the point I'm trying to get across is not to dismiss the collaboration when artists write songs, many of the great songs were co-written with songwriters who worked with the band to guide them and shape the song. Many of the great songs weren't actually written by the artist who sings them.
Either way we must remember that songwriting is a forgotten and occassionally misguided artform, many think that it is easy to just pop an idea out onto paper, but it sometimes takes weeks before a song is perfected, on occassion it would take minutes, it all depends on the situation the writer is in.
Co-writing is not a crime, it is a vital part of the music industry. If we didn't have songwriters in the background assisting with guiding the artists we'd end up with a bunch of the same old songs, sounding the same and all whining about misplaced love or loving someone, which for the record is not great. So people stop complaining that its wrong for any recording artist (aside from those pop-stars) to work with other people, if they didn't you wouldn't have these great songs.
So before you complain about the industry and niggling unimportant things, know what you're talking about.
Friday, 10 July 2009
In The Beginning...
Nothing much happened.
Unless todays 4 hour stint at the dental hospital today is exciting for anyone, most of it consisted of waiting, the other 3/4 consisted of x-ray and lots of pain.
Other than that this is just a hello post. I've had the mindset to grab a new one of these because, well I lost the password to the other and to be honest I don't think there's anything remotely interesting on there. Not that there will be on here, but hopefully I'll remember that I have this and will update regularly.
Unlike many of the other places I have registered to heh.
So yeah, just a brief hallo and that's it.
Unless todays 4 hour stint at the dental hospital today is exciting for anyone, most of it consisted of waiting, the other 3/4 consisted of x-ray and lots of pain.
Other than that this is just a hello post. I've had the mindset to grab a new one of these because, well I lost the password to the other and to be honest I don't think there's anything remotely interesting on there. Not that there will be on here, but hopefully I'll remember that I have this and will update regularly.
Unlike many of the other places I have registered to heh.
So yeah, just a brief hallo and that's it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)