The Hunt for Gollum

I'm totally jazzed over a link I just picked up from Papa Herman's blog.

Doug Levy, for the Daily Dose, wrote:

THE HUNT FOR GOLLUM
Fan-made film taken to new levels

Director Chris Bouchard’s The Hunt for Gollum revisits the world of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy with a glimpse at a previously unseen part of the tale.

The results belie the miniscule budget. Bouchard made the 40-minute film for just a few thousand dollars, employing makeshift camera equipment, orchestra synthesizers, and volunteer digital animators. Most of the cast and crew — roughly 160 in all — donated their time after realizing the extent of the undertaking.

Familiar faces abound. The film follows Aragorn’s quest to track down the titular ring-craving creature, also featuring appearances from Gandalf, Arwin, and other LOTR characters. The actor portraying Aragorn bears more than a passing resemblance to Viggo Mortensen, while the wizard is a dead ringer for Ian McKellen.

It’s available to watch for free. In order to steer clear of potential problems with movie studios and the Tolkien estate, the filmmakers agreed to make the production completely nonprofit, meaning that the final result is yours to enjoy in its entirety free of charge.

To see the film visit the ‘Hunt for Gollum’ click HERE

Artistic Integrity

My pal Jaquandor brought up an interesting point over on Byzantium Shores. Apparently there is a new Star Trek movie coming out. However, THIS movie takes some pretty big liberties with the back story of primary characters from the legendary cult classic. In Kelly's words, "Kirk is apparently the delinquent doofus who gets pushed into enlisting by someone else."

So, just to play devil's advocate, I challenged him on whether this was unrealistic or not. Which started us both thinking a bit more on the issues at stake.

What I'm trying to figure out now is whether or not I agree that there is any sort of ethical or artistic obligation to keep true to established characters in a work of fiction, or whether it might be acceptable to KEEP the same names and basic framework, yet re-invent the way the people interact or what their backstory is.

What do you think?

If we are about to blow up will someone tell me??

I've been on a media fast for the past couple months. We have not had TV since moving and so far we have not managed to arrange for a regular newspaper. I haven't a clue what's going on in the world.

It's feeling a little strange to be so unaware of current events.

On the plus side, however, I have seen zero commercials of Smiling Bob promoting Enzite for "natural male enhancement" and I have not missed those degrading adds for "Girls Gone Wild" videos. I've not been tempted to buy gadgets I don't really need. Best of all, I've listened to more music and read more books. That has been soothing indeed.

My beloved does miss watching House, Grey's Anatomy and CSI. He missing his fishing shows and occasional forays into professional bull riding which I absolutely do not understand his fascination for.

So on Saturday the guy from DISH TV is supposed to come hook us up again. I'm not really looking forward to it. I've come to really appreciate this softer, quieter way of spending our evenings. Having TV available for specific chosen viewing is one thing. I am going to lobby hard that it does not become a default presence of constant yacking and flickering light in our home. Hopefully we can continue as we have, taking lovely walks through the wheat fields after dinner instead of vegging out in from of the stupid box.

I've always maintained that TV is neither good or bad, it's merely a tool that can be applied in useful ways to inform and entertain or used as a brain numbing vampire of thought, depending on the choices we make. I know in the past there have been too many times we've had the dumb thing on just to fill up the quiet with sound. I'm hoping for wiser choices in the future.

GATTACA

Every couple years I am compelled to go to the local video store and rent the best Sci Fi movie ever made - Gattaca. I LOVE this film.

Made 10 years ago, this sweet little movie has so many layers to it... and raises some important questions.

One of the quotes from the film is when Vincent Freeman says "We now have discrimination down to a science"

Some would argue that the only reason discrimination is bad/wrong/unfair is that it is based on prejudice that inaccurately attributes negative assumptions to an entire group or class based on a few limited cases. The reason people think that ALL women are bad drivers is because SOME women are bad drivers, believe ALL African Americans are better at sports or inclined to violence is that SOME are. Individual cases or limited trends get extrapolated to blanket assumptions about the whole. Now, that's just wrong, correct?

But what if we had some sort of science which could unequivocally prove that a person was prone to certain diseases or had specific personality type, would develop particular limits of mind or body?

Would it be unethical to deny that person insurance coverage if we KNEW in advance he or she would get cancer or advanced heart disease or merely prudent on the part of the company offering the coverage? Would it be wrong to socially favor those who have demonstrated a far greater potential for achievement rather than taking a chance on someone whose genotype indicated he or she is more likely to produce marginal results? Could such a test determine entrance to colleges, to jobs, to who should or should not reproduce? Would that make the world a better place?

Do we resist the idea because it is a bad idea or do we resist the idea out of fear that we would wind up on the wrong end of the privilege stick?

American minds balk at the backward notions of a caste system whereby individuals are assigned to a profession, a way of life, AT BIRTH that cannot be changed, based entirely on the role of the parents. We are so locked into the notion of hope inherent in the possibility of social mobility that we resent any system that dictates an ascribed status that cannot be changed.

But what if those assignments were not based on the happenstance of who one's parents were, but rather based on a proven calculation of some scientific test that indicated what a person's strengths and weaknesses and aptitudes would be?

As for me, I'm with Vincent. I believe in pursuing dreams beyond all reason. I believe in scrambling for what my heart longs for even in the face of being told by rational authorities that it is utterly impossible. I don't want to be reasonable. I want to chase my dreams.

Yet as we advance in developing refinements of knowledge based on mapping the human genome there are all sorts of quirky ethical questions that arise.

Does it make sense to spend limited resources educating those with limited ability to benefit or contribute back?

Should we spend public dollars giving medical care to those we are quite sure are about to die anyway?

Is it fool hardy to marry a man (or woman) whose genes can tell you in advance you are just asking for a life on the more painful side of the balance scale in the "for better or worse" pledge?

These are the sorts of questions that will pivot through my brain whenever I watch this film. So I'll pop up a big bowl of popcorn and settle in with my favorite movie for the third or fourth time. I'll ponder big questions and dream of flying to the stars.

Frontline - American Experience

• Tonight and tomorrow on PBS will be a two part series about the LDS faith. I'm not sure what to expect. From the video stream available on the web it sounds as if it has been well produced. But I am very mindful of the fact that it is produced by those outside of my faith, and may or may not be entirely accurate. I plan to watch it and see what they have to say. I pray that it will do more to open up dialogue than create contention.

What is Ubermeat?

I was having a conversation with my beloved the other day and I said something in passing about Wikipedia - I think referring to an interview in TIME magazine with Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales.

Dearest husband looked at me blankly and said "what the heck is wikipedia?" HUH?? I forget sometimes that even though we live in the same house we really do inhabit separate universes in terms of what we read, listen to, and how we relate to the world around us. How is it possible he has never heard of Wikipedia?? I can totally accept that he might choose not to use it - but to be completely oblivious to it's existance? That sort of threw me for a loop. But since he seldom uses a computer for anything beyond playing spider solitaire, I really shouldn't be all that surprised.

So I tried to briefly explain to him what Wikipedia was - how it was created and maintained, what it's strengths are and the flaws inherent to the system. His response was - "Do they have a definition for Ubermeat? Try looking up Ubermeat." Oh brother.

I don't know if he was hungry or had just been watching too much TV, but apparently the Quiznos commercial about the ubermeat has made an impact. Well, I hate to let dear hubby down, but I did NOT find a wikipedia listing for Ubermeat. I DID however find THIS blog which had some interesting linguistic analysis.

Gothic Sibs

Ya gotta hand it to those Bronte sisters. Nobody does Gothic romance quite like them. I recently re-read Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. Tonight I watched the 1992 movie version of Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte. Yeah, I know all about the argument that it was actually written by the brother Bronte, Branswell. But I'm still rooting for Emily.

What is it about the obsessive passion of Heathcliffe and Catherine that generations have found so captivating?

I can scarcely imagine what it would have been like to have been born into a time and place where women had no right over their own property, their own bodies, their own lives. Besides that, watching the scene of boiling clothes makes me darn grateful for some of the lovely modern conveniences I have at my fingertips.

Still, every now and then it feels good to get lost in fantasy of living in some stone castle on the moores (although it does look rather drafty and no doubt had marginal plumbing).

Anyway, it was nice to see a movie with no explosions or car chases or knife fights or profanity. Just good old lust, jealousy, bitterness and spite. Heathcliffe is such an absolute cad - contorted by his passion, driven to dreadful cruelty - and yet I can't bring myself to despise him. What can be said of Cathy? While my egalitarian sensibilities balk when she marries for money, position, ease - willfully turning her back on the one she had the deep heart passion for...can I truly fault her considering the norms of the day? It's a strange, convoluted tale within a tale that ends badly for most the major players. But it was a pleasant diversion for the evening.

CNN Effect & the Blogosphere

I've been giving some thought to how what goes on in the blogosphere expresses and explains world events and to what extent this form of free expression shapes world events.

I have absolutely NO illusions that my humble little Mind-Muffins has much impact. I have a dozen or so faithful readers and then get the odd assortment of folk who do a google search looking for something else entirely but are somehow led here. (I really must apologize to all those people who are trying to research Elliptical machines and keep getting directed to my posting about my beloved assembling the one he bought in January.)

I've also found that there is apparently some porno star who goes by the name Belladonna... not something I was aware of when I took on the appellation. I was thinking more of the Stevie Nicks album when I adopted the pseudonym.

At any rate, my little blog if far too mundane to generate much serious interest, and I'm OK with that. I'm always flattered when I get linked by more serious writers than myself, but I have no illusions of grandeur.

All that being said.... there are SOME blogs that have a readership of thousands, elite sites that appear to be shakin' up folks ideas and attitudes on a whole range of topics.

So what I'm talking about here is more along those lines.... not the hundreds of teen-age angst blogs or the rude/crude nonsense crap that pollutes the Web. Not the contemplate my navel introspection kind. Rather, I am recognizing that there are several blogs which do more looking OUTWARD than inward. As an observer of community trends, mores and values, I'm just a bit curious about the impact that is having on our culture.

Back in 2002, there was a flurry of talk about the "CNN EFFECT" , referring to "the effect that continuous and instantaneous television may have on foreign policy, in the making of foreign policy and the conduct of war." (see link for source).

Since that time, the amount of political commentary on blogs by both private individuals and professional journalists has grow exponentially. The main difference that I see is that CNN does have a staff whose sole job it is to verify claims before they are aired. Bloggers, in contrast, make up the entire spectrum when it comes to reliability and ethics of what is reported. With no peer review or editorial chief to answer to, all too often words go tumbling out without regard for the questions my grandma used to say we should all ask ourselves before we say anything:

1) is it true?
2) is it kind?
3) is it necessary?

Things get said that are none of the above on a daily basis. I cannot help but ponder a bit on the consequence of that.

Knowing what and whom to believe in this murky quagmire of words can be quite daunting.

However, it appears that there are those movers and shakers who are increasingly paying attention to what bloggers have to say, using the more elite blogs as a sort of pulse of what things the grand populous is concerned about.

From The Power and Politics of Blogs by Daniel W. Drezner and Henry Farrell:
"In 1999, the number of blogs was estimated at under 50; at the end of 2000, estimates range from 2.4 million to 4.1 million. One study estimates that by 2005 more than 10 million blogs will have been created."

Ok. So here we are in 2007. The blogs on the airwaves are like stars in the sky. They seem to be endless.

Also, like the stars, some are dim, some shine brightly. Some flame out as comets. Some provide guiding lights you can depend on for direction, like the northern star.

But how to tell which is which in this grand astronomy of words?

I'm rethinking which blogs I read consistently and which ones I pop in on from time to time.
I'm re-evaluating WHY I read as many as I do...some are like a sweet visit with a dear pal. Others are definitely hard core study. Both have value... they are just very different.

Yet beyond how I allow this profusion of words to affect ME, I am pondering how our free expression in the blogosphere effects our world.

What do you think?

Discovering Dr. Who

I am not much of a television watcher. We have the standard box, plus an obscenely huge big screen in husband's room with the aforementioned dead things on walls where I seldom go. I will do the occasional channel surfing, but I generally choose to read, write, or do other things on those rare occasions when I find myself with some discretionary time. I have no smug sense of pompous superiority about that (as I have sensed from some anti-TV folk). I merely have never developed much interest in TV.

The problem with satellite TV is that it just takes you twice as long to figure out that there's usually nothing but junk on. Also, I get very annoyed when even when I've chosen some reasonably tasteful programs to watch I get inundated with dreadful commercials like those of Smiling Bob promoting Enzyte for "Natural Male Enhancement" or "Girls Gone Wild" videos, interspersed with ads for shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" or "gay, straight or taken?" Thank you, NO.

Tonight, however, I spent a little time with the husband-person cuddling on the couch while he flicked channels. One of the choices that scrolled up was Dr. Who. I had remembered reading something about how Torchwolf was a major Dr. Who fan, so I thought I'd check it out.

OH MY WORD. What an interesting, quirky, bizarre show. The dialogue had me in stitches. I don't know enough of the background of the storyline to make heads or tails of it, and I'm totally unfamiliar with the characters. Still, it was a hoot.

I grew up watching hour upon hour of Star Trek and was a hard core Star Wars fan for years; I used to love watching DS9. I've been to a couple different Sci Fi conventions and have read dozens upon dozens of sci fi novels over the years. So shows with lots of strange aliens and space travel feel fun and familiar to me. But Dr. Who was different from the usual American space fare I've grown accustomed to. Maybe it's the British influence? Don't know. But the flavor is decidedly different, in a good way.

I still don't expect to spend much time in front of the boob tube, but this is a show I'd watch again.

Opportunity Cost

Tonight I was talking on the phone with my sister about all sorts of different things. She lives in Colorado and I'm in Oregon, so we don't see each other very often. But we stay in touch by talking on the phone pretty frequently, having these wild, tangential conversations while we cook. I was chopping bell peppers and boiling pasta on my end and she was browning pork chops and tossing a salad at her house while we talked about all sorts of topics, ranging from our kids to our siblings to world events.

Somewhere in there we got onto the subject of the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death. Now, don't get me wrong... It is sad anytime a young mother dies. I'm not saying it was unimportant or insignificant that this woman so suddenly left this world. But OH MY WORD why on earth has her death sparked such a media frenzy? We came to the conclusion that it was a toss up between the size of her boobs or the size of her bank account that held people's fascination. Also, my sister believes that people with normal, mundane, average lives take some sort of morbid pleasure in knowing that someone more rich and more beautiful was also more screwed up in many ways.

I'm not so sure about that. What is at issue for me is the opportunity cost involved in the media frenzy. There are only so many inches of newsprint in each edition of a paper. There are only so many minutes of airtime on every evening or morning news program that we watch. What OTHER events were occurring that we DIDN'T read or hear about because we were being bombarded with speculations over who will win the paternity lottery of all time to get to claim control of the estate to be inherited by one very rich baby girl?

In the Spring of 1980 there were a rash of destructive tornados that destroyed property and took lives that most Americans never even heard about. They were overlooked because on May 18 of that year Mount St. Helens errupted -

Every time we receive one message it means we are not receiving something else.

So Goodbye Anna Nicole. I'm sure your friends and family will grieve your loss. But as for me...excuse me if this seems cold and heartless, but can we please just move on?

The Dog Turd Analogy

I do not watch any Rated “R” movies in theaters. I will, on occasion, watch the edited version on TV. However, lately it seems the networks are cutting out less and less, so my tolerance for those films is wearing thin as well.

I recognize that the movie rating system is rather arbitrary – some GREAT flicks are rated R and some truly dreadful films with lots of borderline material is rated PG-13. So I can’t entirely rely on the rating system. But it is a starting point for me to at least screen out those films that are pretty sure to have profanity, violence, or sex scenes.

I am less offended by most sex scenes than I am by the blatant violence that abounds in so many films. Still, what ever happened to the good old days when people would look longingly into one another’s eyes and then have the camera cut away to the crashing waves or a fireplace? I assure you, I have a very vivid imagination. I can figure out what happens next. I really don’t need to see people get naked and jump on each other. Watching other people get it on just isn’t all that entertaining for me.

I really dislike the violence. So many movies are going for the gore factor - not just needing to show you that someone was killed, but making sure they maximize the shock factor with as much blood and twitching as possible. YUCK! Those who routinely watch that sort of thing get to the point of being pretty desensitized to it all - crash scenes and shootouts every few minutes until the audience becomes numb to it all, leading to an ever increasing effort on the part of film makers to create scenes more titillating. No thanks. Not for me.

What offends me the most is the profanity. I HATE listening to cheap, coarse talk. I’ve heard people say: “Oh, it’s a really good movie. There’s this one part where they use some bad language, but other than that everything is really good.”

I equate that to the Dog Turd Analogy. If you went to a fancy banquet, where there was a beautiful table set with fine china and crystal, piled high with the most exquisite foods you ever did see – yet there was one tiny dog turd on the side of your plate, would you continue to eat from it? Could you just scoot the turd out of your way and ignore it while you savored the rest of the meal? I don’t know about you, but I could not. I would consider the whole dinner contaminated.

Or how about if someone offered you a glass of fine wine that you saw someone place just three or four drops of urine or blood into. You probably wouldn’t even taste it. Would you still drink the wine? I would not. (Ok, maybe that one is cheating since I don’t drink alcohol of any kind ….but you get my meaning.)

I find profanity offensive. I have been known to resort to it on occasion, (like when I hit my thumb with a hammer) but for the most part it’s not part of my every day speech.

What I find interesting is the degree to which I have tolerated it in some of the books I’ve read. In print I seem more willing to just bleep it out with the occasional foul mouth character comes along. If the stuff continues to crop up I have been known to put a book down. Bad language is what keeps me from reading any more of Patricia Cornwell’s Kay Scarpetta novels. Cornwell writes some great stuff, but there is that one foul mouthed cop that keeps turning up and his language is beyond what I am willing to bear.

I find it frustrating that I have no indicator for books like I do for movies. I hate it when I get 2/3 of the way through a novel and am engrossed in the plot, attached to the characters, only to get smacked in the face by several pages in a row sprinkled with curse words. (Such as the one I recently finished, "The Book of Fate.")

Why do writers find it necessary to use that kind of language? I've heard some people use the argument "it's realistic!" Yeah, well so are hangnails, tax audits and diarrhea and I don't much want to read about those either.

Vulgar words are all a bunch of poop in my book.

There are so many more eloquent ways to express thoughts and events.

Oh - and for those of you who were totally grossed out by the picture of a pile of poop up top of this posting...it's actually FOSSILIZED POOP, Cenozoic coprolite, reputedly from a carnivorous mammal. The organic matter in fossil poop has been completely replaced by minerals, and has no odor.

Still not something I want on my plate at a banquet, no matter what sort of stone it has become.