On Listening to Too Much Dan Carlin (03)

Another downward spiral in the suicide plunge that Hollywood took was the financial disaster that followed in the filming of such "franchises" as Battleship, Monopoly, Sorry! and Mouse Trap. Believing that "synergies" could be created by making a movie out of a bestseller in another genre, Hollywood could not "get it" that strong sales in one area might not translate to strong sales in another area. Silly things like story, character and the like got lost in the shuffle.

When franchise after franchise failed to live up (in a very spectacular fashion) to initial expectations, the studios imploded. Some closed their doors, some declared Chapter 11 and hoped to come back, some flew apart like an engine revving to the point beyond which centripetal forces took over.

One of these studios tried to reverse the trends of the stupefaction of cinema by filming "more intellectual" properties. While versions of the works of Shakespeare and Dickens did well, other properties did not. After several successes, which led to purchasing and financing more and more properties, which led to stretched purse strings, this studio too went under when it hired Terry Gilliam to make a movie of a property even he could not boil down into a cinematic bite: Douglas Hofstadter's award-winning Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

Even Gilliam could not film the impossible.

On Patrol with a Pad and Pencil

Part one of a five-part series from The New York Times on a combat artist in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excellent illustations and it is nice to see this MOS continuing in the era of digital cameras and instant communications.

Don't Know Nuthin' 'Bout Edication

Maybe it is listening to too much Dan Carlin of late, but I've been thinking about this for a while. How do we make education more interesting?

I've encountered a lot of wrong approaches, both in my own schooling and in the schooling of The Young Lady. Both she and I have suffered from changes in (for example) the math program every couple of years.

Then there is the idea of appreciation. How much of what you are exposed to is appreciated when you learn it? I had to read Moby Dick, David Copperfield and much more in middle school and high school. In general, I did not like what I had to read (I did read a lot in high school, about as fast and as much as I do these days!) and it is only now that I am coming back around to some of these books and seeing how good they are.

Should we defer such classics until we can appreciate them?

Are there subjects we should defer? You dash through history (the joke is that most people only learn about the Korean War or the Vietnam War in high school because of television shows such as M*A*S*H or Tour of Duty); I am getting more out of reading history these days than I did in school. Did school lay the foundation? Maybe, but I'm betting it was more a combination of "wargames" (or, if you prefer, the politically correct "conflict simulations") and being in the military.

Trends are a bad thing. I mentioned the swapping of math programs that both my daughter and I went through. I also went through trends in books where books of quality were swapped for books that were "cool" or "hip" to us youngsters. Does anybody these days still read I Never Promised You A Rose Garden? Death Be Not Proud? ...or any of those other "instant" relevant books?

No firm conclusions, but there has got to be a better way of doing things.

You Will Not Fear...the Arrow That Flies by Day

Powerful image from our troops.

The Space Review

Man, I am behind in my reading of The Space Review!

From the April 26, 2010 issue: G. Ryan Faith looks further at the new space plan (part 1 here). Taylor Dinerman looks at the return of the RLV soap opera. Mark V. Sykes also speculates on the new direction in the space program. And a look to the past with Eve Lichtgarn's review of a book from the dawn of the space age.

From the May 3, 2010 issue: Roger Handberg looks at the future of the ISS with the new direction in space. Daniel Handlin looks at commercial involvement in the new direction. Taylor Dinerman goes back to the Moon. A post-American Moon? And Jeff Foust looks at a book that was published at the right time (for the news cycle).

From the May 10, 2010 issue: Doris Hamill on the new direction (still waiting on a better roadmap, myself). Taylor Dinerman looks at the possibility of additional shuttle missions. Send up the Toybox! A first step?

From the May 17, 2010 issue: The final (?) mission of space shuttle Atlantis. Philip Stooke asks where are we going in space? Good question! Doris Hamill on technology push and pull. Finally, S. Alan Stern (always worth reading!) on the migration from public (government) efforts to private efforts.

From the May 24, 2010 issue: Zombies in space! Jeff Foust on (what was) the upcoming launch of Falcon IX and the test of the Dragon spacecraft (launch was yesterday, all looking good!). Thomas J. Frieling on Rocket Men by Craig Nelson. Glad to see I wasn't the only one who had some problems with the book. Finally, Jonathan Coppersmith looks at a recent conference on commercial space.

From the June 1, 2010 issue: Luckily, this article by S. Alan Stern did not come to pass. Read it anyway. Simon Vanden Bussche on Legos in Space. Actually, some dang good ideas that I've been saying for a long time. Jeff Foust on a commercial space conference in Chicago. Finally, James C. McLane III on Mars as the key to the future of NASA. Only if it ain't flag and footsteps, folks!

I'll try not to let so many issues pile up!

Aaaaaannnnnnssssssiiiiible!

Wot? Another month?

Neil Gaiman, who charges high speaking fees out of sheer self-defence, was not best pleased to be used as a 'political football' after accepting $40,000 to talk at a Minnesota library. (Which needed to use up special funding that couldn't be spent on books or salaries.) The money all went to charity, but the Minneapolis Star Tribune decided this shock horror payment was front-page news. Neil: 'Nobody from the Star Tribune tried to contact me or my assistant or agent for any quotes on this, which I find a bit depressing, given that they have my email and phone number from dozens of previous interviews.' [BB] So it goes.

As Others See Us. Restoring the lost footage of Metropolis has also miraculously rescued it from the taint of sf: 'The cumulative result is a version of "Metropolis" whose tone and focus have been changed. "It's no longer a science-fiction film," said Martin Koerber, a German film archivist and historian who supervised the latest restoration and the earlier one in 2001. "The balance of the story has been given back. It's now a film that encompasses many genres, an epic about conflicts that are ages old. The science-fiction disguise is now very, very thin."' (New York Times, 4 May, sent by dozens of you) As Andy Sawyer wearily commented, 'That's apart from the futuristic setting, the dystopian cityscapes, the videophones, the vast machines and the robot, I guess.'

And much more amusing stuff! Worth reading, as always.