vovat: (Default)
Nathan ([personal profile] vovat) wrote2005-12-17 08:21 pm

Do I look like someone who cares what God thinks?

I did a little Christmas shopping last night. Really, I don't have that many people to buy for, so it shouldn't take that much longer. I just need to talk to a few people about what they want, and then knuckle down and finish shopping. Anyway, at Wal-Mart, there were only around five or so lines open, out of upwards of twenty. It seems pretty ridiculous for this to be the case on a Friday night in December, but then, it IS Wal-Mart we're talking about. At Target, [livejournal.com profile] bethje and I picked up the new Simpsons Season 7 DVD set (the box that wasn't in the form of Marge's head, of course) for ourselves. We haven't had a chance to watch any of it yet, though, since we had a Netflix copy of Hellraiser IV: Bloodline to watch instead.

From the beginning of the movie, I wasn't expecting that much from it. Directorial credit was given to the infamous Alan Smithee, and it started out in outer space, which is often a good sign that the filmmakers are out of ideas for a series. It was pretty much your typical Hollywood future, with a space station full of robots and staffed by quasi-military science officers. I didn't think it turned out to be so bad, though. It was probably better overall than the third movie in the series, if only because there weren't any lame Cenobites who threw CD's or had TV cameras in their heads. I also thought the origins of the puzzle box were interesting, as was the interaction between Pinhead and the Princess of Hell. Since the movie shows Pinhead and the forces of Hell as still active but frustrated in their ultimate goal in the late twenty-second century, it pretty much requires that the other movies in the series will end up as stalemates (unless they ignore the continuity established in this one entirely). Really, though, I don't know that I would have expected anything else. I still think the second Hellraiser is the best in the series so far, and I doubt any of the four direct-to-video additions will surpass it (although I still intend to watch them). I do think it's kind of weird that, after establishing Leviathan as the ruler of Hell in the second one, Pinhead seems to be essentially a free agent in the next two. I mean, I know he's the most popular character (and rightfully so), but a little continuity with respect to the Hellish hierarchy would be nice.

Hmm, the guy who played Peter in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was named William Moseley, which is also the name of the guy who played Otis in House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. This kind of coincidence of names generally interests me, even though I know there's no real significance to it, any more than there is to the fact that the guy who plays Macnair in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (but not in Goblet of Fire) is named Peter Best. I guess being kicked out of the most popular rock band in history WOULD be likely to make someone turn to Voldemort's side, though. {g}

On the radio this morning, I heard someone ranting about a proposed smoking ban somewhere in New Jersey. I'm generally against that kind of thing, because I think that's something business owners should be able to decide for themselves. Most restaurants I go to, for instance, either have non-smoking sections or are totally smoke-free. There are other businesses, however, where not letting people smoke would probably result in a decline in patronage. I'm very much opposed to smoking in general, but I don't think banning smoking in public places would actually lead to a decrease in said behavior.

One possible exception here is the concert venue. If the only place in your area where your favorite band is playing allows smoking, you technically have the choice not to go, but is that really fair? Now, really, most concert venues that I've been to are pretty crappy overall anyway. When you're wedged in a room with a bunch of pushing and shoving people, forced to stand up through a show that doesn't start on time, with a sound system that doesn't work properly, the amount of discomfort added by a little cigarette smoke is negligible. Still, some people have extreme reactions to smoke. Maybe such places should start having assigned smoking sections. I know they won't, though.


Banished Scholar
You scored 19 privilegedbirth, 37 scholarliness, 17 ruthlessness, and 33 outspokenness!

You're lucky to be banished! Most guys like you end up with their
entrails on the front steps. You rose from your lowly birth with
learning, but you forgot to keep your mouth shut. Nobody likes a party
pooper, and pointing out the foibles of Roman society did not earn you
that nice cushy position tutoring the Senator's feeble-minded
offspring. It is suggested that you never set foot in Rome again, but I
hear things are much milder and more tolerant down in Judea, so maybe
make your way over there. Cheers!



My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 24% on privilegedbirth
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 46% on scholarliness
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 22% on ruthlessness
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 56% on outspokenness
Link: The Who in Ancient Rome Are You Test written by chickennibbler on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test



I started reading Gregory Maguire's Son of a Witch today. As a big fan of the original Oz series, I think Wicked might have bothered me more than it would someone who knew only MGM, yet I was also able to get things out of it that non-book-fans might not have picked up on. I'm not a big fan of Maguire's writing style, and much of the dialogue is in the same basic style as the narrative. So far, though, Son of a Witch has held my interest more than Wicked did in its early chapters. There was even an amusing reference to Henry Littlefield's infamous populism interpretation of The Wizard of Oz.

[identity profile] vovat.livejournal.com 2005-12-19 09:35 pm (UTC)(link)
I've never heard any of it. I wouldn't mind seeing the musical, but I'd rather wait for them to make a movie out of it, which they probably will. I have nothing AGAINST live theater, but it's rather pricy and out-of-the-way for me.

I've seen descriptions of the plot of the musical, which is apparently considerably less dark than the book. I also understand that it places more emphasis on the familiar Wizard of Oz characters, giving the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman alternate identities that contradict both the book of Wicked and Baum's original story.

[identity profile] onib.livejournal.com 2005-12-20 11:41 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I saw that the tour group for Wicked was coming through Philly in March, but the tickets were pretty pricy. We might have to rearrange the budget a bit so we can see it. It's been a while since we've been to a professional musical, and it does seem much less dark, as you said. I like the idea in the musical that all the characters weren't just randomly meeting once Dorothy arrived, but that almost every character had been changed, seemingly for the worst, because the witch had tried to help them.

[identity profile] vovat.livejournal.com 2005-12-20 09:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I think the Lion's story, at least, is pretty much the same in the Wicked book and musical. The Tin Woodman's origin story in the book is the same as the one in Baum's original book, although he changed it somewhat for The Tin Woodman of Oz. (The original story was that Nick Chopper fell in love with a girl whose employer paid the Wicked Witch of the East to get Nick out of the way. In the later version, the girl worked for the Witch herself.) The Scarecrow's origin is given in Ruth Plumly Thompson's The Royal Book of Oz, and it has nothing to do with the Wicked Witches.