| Seeking old friends |
[Dec. 28th, 2008|08:09 pm] |
If you are Ebony or Yuuki Miyaka...I'd love to hear from you.
If you are Woof or Wolftriker... I'd love to hear from you.
If you are Imadame... I'd love to hear from you.
I'm missing old friends, and feeling adrift. I've sent some emails, but nobody answers them...
-Cat |
|
|
| Movie Rant |
[Jul. 29th, 2007|07:48 pm] |
I don't see a lot of movies in theater. Take the minimum 6.50 purchase price (for my area), add in the needed popcorn/drink, and it's an expensive trip.
However, today I saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and I wanted to share two things.
Don't worry about spoilers. The issues have nothing to do with the movie, only my ability to enjoy it.
To the man sitting in front of me: I really don't care for your cologne. And sitting two feet behind you and still smelling it did not make it any better. The only one who should be able to smell your scent should be someone very close. And trust me, I do NOT want to be that person.
To the lady with the jingly bracelet: Take the damn thing off. Seriously. Every time you moved your arm, we could hear little bells. At first I thought it was the bells sometimes put on a child's shoes. Then I realized the noise came from you. You are not a seven year old. You're in a public place that depends on some degree of quiet. Take the bracelet off and shove it into your purse. If for some reason you refuse to remove it, muffle it. A napkin or three would help.
Movie goers are often ignoring theaters just because of people like these. I didn't have the talkers this time. And I didn't hear a single cell phone, but I have before.
Seriously, people. Have some courtesy! |
|
|
| Bonus Rant |
[Jun. 4th, 2007|12:44 pm] |
Or at least a thought.
There was a debate this weekend. A presidential campaign debate. Lovely photo of Clinton and Obama sitting in chairs, trying to look meaningful.
...Right now, this is how I'd like to vote:
I'll vote for someone for president if they only start running in 2008, the same year as the actual election.
Seriously. I know they need to 'get their name out', and 'build the war chest', but sheesh...2 years of election crap?
It makes me wonder whether they'll do anything in the Senate, where Clinton and Obama are supposed to be, or their other jobs (governors, etc).
...Or maybe that's a good thing? |
|
|
| It's been awhile |
[Jun. 4th, 2007|10:32 am] |
Hi there. It's been awhile. I've had a vacation, been working hard at work, new landlord, lots of cat hair.
Today, however, I'm going to rant.
Two topics. Cell phones and flip-flops.
On cell phones. STOP TAKING CALLS IN THE RESTROOMS, YOU FREAKS.
There is only one good reason to take a call in a restroom. You've been waiting for some truly important news. Such as 'transplant is failing, doc, get here fast', or 'yes, mom made it out of surgery okay and has been upgraded from dead to alive."
That little Tommy made it to school is not as important. It's called voice mail, and it works.
And there is only ONE good reason to MAKE a call from the restroom.
...You're trapped, and you need someone to come get you out.
I work in an office building. There's 8 or so toilets in the restroom on my floor. Why would ANYONE think that this is a good place to chat on the phone? Hi How ya doing? ...
Or do these people think, "Hey, I was just taking a pee and I thought I'd call you."
Trust me...the conversation can wait. REALLY.
And on the subject of flip-flops.
Burn them.
Shred them.
Destroy them.
Flip-flops are appropriate for, say, puttering around the house or maybe going to the garden or to the mail box.
Please, stop wearing them at work. There are few things as distracting as the stupid flopping noise. Especially since, at least where I work, my flip-floppers are also foot draggers, so it's double annoying.
Plus...well, guys, I've got news for you. You have ugly toes. Your idea of food care involves a jackknife when you think about it. Spare us your feet. |
|
|
| Iraq Deaths |
[Jan. 5th, 2007|11:14 am] |
| [ | mood |
| |  pensive | ] |
I've got a question. And it's one I'm pretty sure nobody will want to answer.
And, mind you, I'm not minimizing that 3000 soldiers have died. (Though I will point out that this is a fairly low number, historically, for military conflict deaths.)
My question is this:
How many would have died anyway?
Or, more precisely:
How many deaths are not caused by the conflict? (Ie, mines, bombs, guns.)
I remember, a few years ago, a helicopter went down, and the news proclaimed it the 'biggest losses so far'. Well, it turned out that the copter went down because of a mechanical malfunction (with some possibility of pilot error). Now, this is still tragic, but it was not caused by someone trying to hurt them. That copter, likely, would have gone down regardless. If it was doing training in Tennessee, the same problem would have occurred. (And sometimes, does.)
So how many of the 3000 died of things that aren't related to Iraq?
As a note, the biggest cause of death in today's military is not war related at all. It's drunk driving. |
|
|
| Yes, Movie People we get it, now stop annoying us |
[Dec. 4th, 2006|10:56 pm] |
I've been watching quite a few movies lately. Nothing like a nasty cold and Blockbuster Online to make you plow through flicks.
I've discovered, however, that the "Don't be a pirate, it's illegal, the FBI will hunt you down and fine you, you stupid twit" notice is now often BEFORE the movie.
Fine...I can cope with that.
EXCEPT
You can't fast forward past it. Or Next it. It's going to be stuck on your screen for 30-60 seconds.
Now, that's not a LONG time, but it's irritating. Especially since....
Well, those who are going to pirate...are gonna do it anyway.
And those of us who have purchased or rented the movie legitimately...don't need it.
Yes, yes, we realize that piracy can be a huge problem. But, really, is a minute long notice gonna stop that guy in china from selling bootlegs?
This is, of course, a move by the same people who'd like to make you pay extra (if you get to do it at all, which they'd rather you didn't), if you use a "Home Theater"
...defined as a tv larger than 26 inches (pretty common), with seating for more than 1 person (say, two chairs, or a couch.).
...Yup... that's a major moneymaker right there...
(Sigh) |
|
|
| Medicine |
[Nov. 20th, 2006|11:25 am] |
You know, I've read a fair bit lately on the joys of socialized medicine. Canada, UK, even Sweden.
And once again, I'm glad to be in the United States.
Do I pay too much? Probably. I just chose my insurance plan for the year.
But you know what?
I can see my doctor.
I can see ANY doctor. (Unless they don't want to see me without a referral for their own schedule reasons).
I can see any dentist.
And get treated.
Really.
Last week, my tooth was hurting over the weekend. I called my dentist just after they opened, then drove over and was seen. Today, I get the full treatment (I got antibiotics first, which must do their trick before he can.)
I read online in the Daily Mail where this guy has been supergluing his crown to his tooth because he can't get a dentist.
A couple months ago, my foot was hurting. I called the doctor, got in the next day.
My mom needed knee surgery (twice). For one operation, the doctor told her that she needed to get into the dentist quickly, because she had a week and a half before the operation, unless she wanted to wait longer. (Dentist because of the issues bacteria can have on replacement knees).
Heck, when my sister in law had gall bladder problems, the only delay was the fact that she didn't want to do surgery for awhile. But when the pain was too great, it took less than a week and it was over.
Say what you will about the US, and our medical system. It's not perfect, but at least you can get treatment. |
|
|
| The Pope and Islam |
[Sep. 25th, 2006|11:48 am] |
I'm not Catholic. My dad is. My mom sorta is. I'm not. That said:
I think the Pope's backpedalling apologies are silly.
Now, he's trying to say he has 'profound respect' for Islam.
Which is, at heart, a lie.
And he knows it.
And we know it.
The Pope is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. Due to centuries of control of Christianity, he is still viewed throughout the world as the leader of the Christian church (despite things like the Reformation).
But that's just it. The leader of the CHRISTIAN church. A church that, by definition, believes that Jesus was the Son of God, born on earth, did some miracles, was crucified, and rose from the dead, that all may have everlasting life. This is the basic belief of Christianity.
By this concept, anyone who does not agree is A: Going to hell B: Needs to be converted. EVERYONE. From Jews, to Buddhists to (for Roman Catholics) Protestants (For not believing the 'correct version' of Christianity.)
Following this arguement, if someone does not believe and they are either going to hell or need conversion, then you cannot truly respect their faith. Because if you did respect their faith, you wouldn't think they're going to hell or need to be converted to your faith.
Islam is not Christianity, therefore, the Pope cannot truly respect it. He cannot truly respect a faith that denies the fundamental tenets of Christianity and Catholicism.
And on that level: Islamic fundamentalists who have gone nuts with 'outrage' because of the Pope's comments: Just as he cannot respect your religion, so you cannot respect his. Because, according to Islam, christians are either A: Going to hell or B: need to be converted.
It's the same arguement. In fact, since a 'heathen' stated something 'anti-muslim' it should only be used to show just how 'heathen' he is.
Ideally, the pope would say something like, "I'm the head of the Roman Catholic Church. I stand by my statement, quoating a Byzantine Emperor, and maintain the view that Islam is a false religion, in that it denies that Jesus is the Savior." because that is his belief. And when fundamentalist Muslims got angry, his reply should have been, in so many words, "Suck it."
Think about it. |
|
|
| A Decree |
[Aug. 23rd, 2006|11:39 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  accomplished | ] |
There are many who complain about the 'baggy saggy' pant look. You know, where the pants are four sizes too big on a male, and hang off his butt?
I've decided that isn't too bad. At least they tend to be young, reasonably fit, and wearing attractive, or at least interesting, boxers over their normal underwear.
Some areas are even trying to ban the look. They claim it 'depresses business' and 'makes people uncomfortable.' (Mostly meaning 'eek, teenagers!')
However, I've decided I don't mind that look so much. I decree that we should shun something far far worse worn by males.
Wearing their pants at their hips. With their belly hanging over it.
You find this mostly in 'grown up' men, even 'suit wearing' men. And whether the shirt is untucked, dangingly freely over the empty space above the crotch, or the shirt is tucked in, emphasizing the ledge of fat, it's hideous.
"But!" says the tie-wearing fellow proudly, "I'm still wearing the same size pants as when I was in high school!"
Well, sir, you are fooling yourself. Really and truly fooling yourself. You know anytime you pull your belly in so you can see your feet that you've gained weight. Wearing your pants low doesn't fool us, it just repels us. (Only thing worse is wearing a speedo in the same fashion. Or at all.)
Try wearing your pants at your waistline. It helps keep the fat more hidden, and makes it all a little easier to bear. If you do, in fact, have a set of six pack abs, it's not a problem. It's when you have keg abs, and then it's a huge problem.
Think of it this way, fellows. You know how you hate to see fat women in stretch pants that emphasize the huge fat rolls? That's what you wearing your pants under your gut look like. It's just as hideous.
So I decree! |
|
|
| Why Israel will Fight |
[Jul. 25th, 2006|10:00 am] |
There's a little war brewing in the Middle East. Technically between Israel and Hezzbolah, it might well become Israel v. Other Muslim Nations. (Although Saudia Arabia has reportedly asked for help from the US to short circuit the mess.).
When Iran was talking about nukes, Israel reminded them that they had them, too.
Why is Israel so ready, and able, to fight?
Because World War II and the Holocaust taught them that if they lose, they will be wiped out. Period.
Israel was founded with the survivors of the Holocaust. Nearly wiped out in Europe. They came to a desert, and built it up. And were attacked. But they know that they cannot back down. They got Israel because nobody wanted them. The US didn't want them, but nobody felt we should make them stay in the Europe that had tried to annihilate them. So...Israel. So they cannot, and will not, back down. To do so will mean death.
As a side note, a great deal of the antipathy towards Israel is not because of the 'they stole our land'. The theft was by Saudi king Fahd (before Saudi Arabia), funded by the British. What really irritates the neighboring nations is that they've thrived. They took a really crappy bit of territory and thrived.
Part of it is they worked to create life, and to create industry. Palestine, even other nations like Iran, have a great deal of unemployment. There is nothing for the youth to aspire to or to work for. Hate and rhetoric becomes all they have. Literally.
As a side note. For those who claim the Holocaust didn't exist, and that the pictures, endless stories, etc, are all lies. Get a grip. Really. Honest. |
|
|
| Breast Feeding Rant |
[Jul. 17th, 2006|11:55 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  quixotic | ] |
I've been reading a lot about breast feeding in public lately. "It's natural! That's what nipples are for!" cry some. "Indecency! Lewdness!" cry others.
And here's my view.
Discreet. Really. Cover 'em up. The old 'cloth over the baby and boob' method work remarkably well.
"But it's natural! I shouldn't have to hide..."
Trust me, lady. I don't want to see your boob. And I don't want to see your nipple...and it will be visible, either because the little bugger disengages, or eventually you'll be done feeding, and it'll be there.
And you don't want Horny Guy in the Corner staring. He's not thinking 'food source', unless he, himself, wants a run at the milk buffet.
"But it's a child...a baby, it needs to be fed."
Well...tough. I KNOW it's possible to do it discreetly. In fact, while I"m at it : Do the same for diaper changes! If the restroom doesn't have a changing place, try to choose a spot at least a little out of the way. The middle of the food court isn't it.
"But that, too, is natural..."
Don't care. It's icky and stinky.
"But it's a baby...and..."
Nope, stop right there. I don't like kids. Really. Can't stand the little buggers. Give me something with fur, a tail, and goes 'meow' and I'm all yours. Try to hand me a baby and we will have issues.
And, while I'm on the subject. Somewhere in New Zealand a lady got in trouble for changing swimsuit for her 16 month old (or something of the like, it might've been diaper, but it wasn't that clear), poolside, and in public. And they have a rule against that, both because of people who don't want to see it (like me) and to protect from pedophiles.
And then the topic continued in terms of how old a child should be before changing in private should be required.
One lady suggested 9 or 10.
(Blink)
Ok, I'll admit, I could accept public changing if the child is, oh, under 2. Maybe 3 at the most. But after that...wait in line for the changing area. Or at least get a towel so the child is covered. (I know I did that at a lake, long ago as a kid, mom held up a towel, so I was covered from view, as I changed.)
"But...it's a child, innocent of the connotations of nudity...'
Yes, the child isn't. And the parents are the adults, and they DO know the connotations. They knew them well enough to HAVE a child.
REally, people, what are they thinking? |
|
|
| Yarrr! Glee! |
[Jul. 16th, 2006|11:38 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  sore | ] |
Well, this weekend was the Cornhusker State Games. And with that, was my first tournament in two years...since a previous State Games.
I didn't do too bad. Actually, I did fairly well, all things considered. I generally got at least one touch on my opponents, and in one bout, though I lost, I at least did decently.
Results:
Women's sabre - First time, and I've only JUSt started learning sabre. Bronze medal. Glee!
Women's foil - 5th place, but not the worst, and I did some good fencing.
Women's epee - Last place, but 'came with it' as the saying goes.
Team foil - I was the weakest link, but we still managed to take Bronze. Glee!
Fencing is hard, but a lot of fun... |
|
|
| Attention Celebrities |
[May. 15th, 2006|01:06 pm] |
Attention Celebrities of the World:
Just a bit of news for you. Your opinions are NOT more important than anyone elses.
Really.
You are an Actor. Or a Musician. Or a Singer. Or someone who managed to be pretty for 10 minutes and get attention. Nothing more.
Yes, you are entitled to have opinions. And thanks to our country's views on speech, you are entitled to speak them out.
But please, stop thinking that just because you make millions of dollars being an actor that you somehow understand foreign policy, or domestic policy, or economic policy, better than anyone else. Especially if you aren't handling your millions yourself, and depend on an accountant. Or team of them.
Should you follow your words with actions...more power to you. If you are crusading for helping third world countries, and hand over a few of your millions, that helps.
If you encourage people to be more generous with charities, using your 'star power', that's okay too.
But trust me, you are nothing more than an actor/musician/whatever. Your views are NOT more important. They're no more important than my views, than my neighbor's views, than the president's views.
Really. |
|
|
| It's time for a new rant. |
[Mar. 19th, 2006|02:45 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  cold | ] |
| [ | music |
| | The sounds of cars driving by on snowy streets. | ] |
It's been awhile since I ranted about stuff, and it's time for a new one.
Rant A:
The Iraq War. I would like to point out a few things about this. First, the war was over nearly 3 years ago. What we have no, is the Iraq Occupation. We won the war. It's the second step, of getting the country on it's feet, that's a challenge. However, we've had good success before. Europe did well after the WWII rebuild. And Japan could be said to do better than any, after the occupation.
Rant B:
Iraq War beginning. You know, however much you may hate Bush and blame him for the conflict, keep in mind that a majority of congress had to agree and vote on the act of war. Regardless of the quality of information, a majority of 400+ people voted Aye. Like it or not, no one president can take the country to war. It takes Congress.
Rant C:
Congress and the Presidency. I'd like to take this time to remind people that the President can encourage policy, make some decisions, and so on, but he can't make one single law. Ever. He can beg, cajole, barter, but cannot make a single law. That is the job of Congress (known as the Legislative Branch for a reason). If you don't like the laws...trust me, it isn't just Bush. Bush can sign or not sign. Anything else is deal making and hoping. It's Congress...
Rant D:
Bush. With Rant C in mind, I'd like to state that yes, I voted for Bush. Twice. The first time, I couldn't vote for Gore. I felt he was a wooden man, without a plan, or a personality. And I truly believe he wouldn't have handled the disaster of 9-11 very well. The second time, I couldn't vote for Kerry. I listened to the debates (yes...really). And at one point, they were talking about what they would do for education. And Kerry was talking about all these laws and initiatives he'd put forth. And it struck me. Laws come out of Congress. This Senior Senator from Massachusetts was talking about what he WOULD do. Not what he HAD done or had TRIED to do, but what he WOULD do. And...well, if he was REALLY concerned about education (or anything else), then he had been in the place to do it. A senior senator is in a good position to get his laws forwarded. He's got connections, friends, etc. And yet...apparently he hadn't really cared until he was running for President. ...Think about it.
Rant E:
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I would like to point out that these are two separate documents and, of them, only the former is law. The second is just a statement to the Crown. Why do I point this out? People keep trying to claim that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Constitution. (At least, judging by my paper's letters to the editor, and some various blogs and news articles I read). The Constitution doesn't promise any of those. That's the Declaration. The Constitution, in fact, can be argued to limit all three of those, in it's own way. Yes, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is a fundamental part of what we believe as Americans...but it's not law. Now, some aspects of it are preserved in the Constitution's first ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights). For example, you can't be deprived of Liberty (personal freedom) or Life without due process of law. And if your Happiness is based on religion, etc, the Government shall not screw you over. But still...they aren't the same document.
Rant F:
Freedom of Speech. "The complaint accuses Google, as the dominant provider of Web searches, of violating KinderStart's constitutional right to free speech by blocking search engine results showing Web site content and other communications." (From an article on a law suit). There are some other statements, elsewhere, that talk about businesses. And at this point, what I've got to say is this. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" That is the whole of the first amendment. And I'd like to point out the first five words. "Congress shall make no law." Congress. Or Government. And Law. In other words, the government won't make the law (unless there are overarching considerations of safety. As in 'shouting fire in a theater will still get you in big trouble'). But it's not 'business' or 'private entities'. Google, or John Doe's Truck Stop, both have the right to limit speech however they feel! The consumer has the right not to deal with them. John Doe's Truck Stop could say that anyone who states anything they consider unpatriotic will be ejected from the place. And they can do it. Because THEY are not the government. And the consumer can then stand outside Joe's and shout how much they think they suck, and take their money elsewhere. Google can restrict free speech because they are not the Government. The constitutional right is only for government, not private entities.
Rant G:
Stupid People. There's just too damn many of them.
Meow! |
|
|
| Death Penalty Talk |
[Dec. 27th, 2005|10:46 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | pensive | ] |
I've been doing a bit of news reading. A week or so ago, Stanley "Tookie" Williams, co-founder of the Crips gang, was executed, for a shooting a fair bit of time ago.
Among the usual anti-death penalty arguments was one less often seen. Specifically, that he'd 'redeemed' himself by being a strong advocate against gangs while in prison, and working on programs to help youth stay away from gangs.
This reminded me of a man who was executed here in Nebraska. Supporters of him said he'd 'changed' and now wrote poetry and such.
Whether one is for or against the death penalty, one thing must be understood. The punishment is not for what a person is NOW, it is for what they did THEN. The decade or more delay is simply because they file appeals (as is their right), but one cannot be entirely surprised when, when all appeals are done, the State continues with the punishment originally ordered.
It is the same for someone given life without parole. Just because they become a great person in jail does not abrograte the punishment they were sentenced to.
"Tookie" was sentenced to death for killing people. (I believe with a shotgun.) While he claimed innocence, the jury disagreed, and subsequent appeals failed.
Again, however one may feel about the death penalty, he was given his due process of law. He was not taken out and shot, he had a trial, he had appeals. Maybe, while in prison, he became an anti-gang crusader. Wonderful. But the crime still was not answered for. The punishment had been decided, and was due.
As a side note: He killed people to earn the sentence he did. It would not be appropriate to sentence him to death merely for founding the Crips, if his crime had been a mild burglary.p |
|
|
| Iran, Holocaust, Israel |
[Dec. 8th, 2005|11:58 am] |
| [ | mood |
| |  good | ] |
Today, December 8, 2005, the president of Iran declared the Holocaust didn't happen, and suggested Israel be moved to Europe.
Okay, Iran, we know you don't like the Jewish state being there. You want it for yourself, preferably. But keep in mind that the ones who took the land from Palastine was Saudi Arabia, under the auspices of Britain. Not the Jews specifically.
Now, we know the Holocaust happened. Denial is not going to work, though a lot of people try it. The historical record is too strong. If you're going to argue that an event, of which there is personal record, and a lot of actual film footage, as well as governmental records kept by the ever diligent Nazis, didn't exist, then maybe people of the past, like, oh, Mohammad, didn't exist either.
And let's say that the world community did suddenly take Israel and plop it somewhere in Europe. Do you think you, Iran, or Iraq, or Saudi, or Palastine, are going to get that land just like that? Here's a hint. No.
Your jealousy over Israel isn't just the age old Jew/Muslim disagreements. It's the fact that the bedraggled immigrants took the land, and then made it flourish. Hey, Iran, try some hard work and you might find your land doing better, too.
I do think the international community made one mistake, and even if Israel went away right now, I hope it is one they would fix.
Jerusalem should not have been made property of Israel.
Yep, the official Capital should not have been given.
And if Israel were to move right now, Jerusalem should not be given to the Muslim entities either.
Why? Because Jerusalem is a big deal to Three major religions. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. In my opinion, it should have been made into an International City (Not unlike the Hague in the Netherlands), where no one entity controlled it, at least on religious terms. All three religions venerate the city, and it does make it harder. (Although, if they'd spend more time venerating the deity they believe in, and less on the land, it might work better.)
Like it or not, Islamic Community with hard opinions, such as Iran, Israel is not going away. They know that if they are engaged in battle, it is for their very lives. The Holocaust, and yes, it happened, taught them that. |
|
|
| Some thoughts on Disney |
[Nov. 27th, 2005|02:21 am] |
It's been awhile since an update. My annual pilgrimage to KC, a new laughter element to the word 'banana' and screaming at clowns. And even a trip to Las Vegas to visit my friend Woof. But that's for later.
Right now, I'm going to talk about Disney.
I'm watching the DVD of Beauty and the Beast. Disney's second movie in the new run of animated features, the first being the Little Mermaid, and the movie that truly marked the return of Disney as a powerhouse. A return that has faded again and again, with analysts and industry people wondering about Disney's earnings power, and saying that Chicken Little must do well.
In my opinion, Disney's had a fair number of problems. Some of the classic movies of the sixties and seventies, while memorable, were also shoddily done. When you watch 101 Dalmations and the Rescuers, you can see the pencil lines, and other marks, which should never be visible in animation unless it's truly deliberate. (You see none of that in Snow White or Cinderella, or Fantasia, all under Walt's touch).
And a lot of crud in the 70s (how many Love Bug movies DO you need), the Little Mermaid marked a return to classic disney style. A good story, excellent animation, and a host of good songs. Beauty and the Beast topped that, engendering the company's first nomination for best picture (not just animated).
Watching Beauty and the Beast again, I can state my opinion as to what Disney needs to do to reclaim the top of the market.
Get a good story, excellent animation, and a host of good songs.
I know 'computer' is the current wave. But even computer needs to be done well. Watching Beauty, there are a host of small details that make it more...beautiful. Realistic, even though it's all animation. Lines in the walls, leaves with different shapes. Disney animators, for the Lion King, studied lions at the zoo, to get the movements right. And, as with Beauty, it paid off for the Lion King. (Beauty and Lion King are the only two to make, and do well on, Broadway).
Good songs are a key part. Music that you remember, and holds your interest. Who doesn't know Whistle While YOu Work from Snow White? It doesn't matter when you last saw it, you know it. Beauty had those kidn of songs, so did other Disneys. And it's also imperative to get real voice talent. I know that there's a trend to get 'big names' to do the voices. And sometimes that's fine. But which matters more... A big name, or someone who can sing the song well? Whoopie goldberg was a name, but would she have been a hyena if her voice hadn't worked for the Hyena in Lion King? Paige O'Hara sings the voice of Beauty. It's perfect. She's broadway. You check imdb.com, and you'll see no other movies. She's Beauty only... Except on Broadway, where she was Fantine in Les Miserables. Because, let's face it... Is a 'name' the reason you see a cartoon? No, it's animation, it's singing... If Mr. Name works...great, but they aren't necessarily the draw.
And...did I mention 'good story'? Beauty and the Beast is a classic. A crapy remake of the Love Bug is not. The Love Bug was a one movie gig that worked. (The other movies were crappy and sucked.)
Heck, a few years ago, another company made a movie about a father fish going to the ends of the ocean for his son. That's a good plot. [Mind you, I think that movie is one of the most depressing things I've ever seen, but that's a separate issue.]
Good plots abound... Literature is filled with them.
I wish, without seriously expecting it, that Disney would return to it's core. Good animated features, and some good live action. (PIrates of the Caribbean is Disney, and they are shooting the next 2 movies now. Though, considering Disney hasn't had a single sequel that didn't suck, I'm kind of afraid.) Some straight to video kids stuff is okay (A Kid in King Arthur's Court, anything involving oranutangs, etc.)
Still, Beauty makes me long for when Disney WAS to be respected...and awed. |
|
|
| Soapbox Time |
[Sep. 13th, 2005|09:21 am] |
For those who think Bush is responsible for Katrina:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8693
Regarding the refusal of the authorities to permit pets: Duh! I love my cat. I would have evacuated -with the cat- in -advance- of the hurricane. But once its crunch time, humans first. Humans only. I'm sure Fluffy is normally well-behaved, but put Fluffy next to Scruff in the Astrodome? In a time of crisis, conflict, and disorientation? Trust me...no good behavior.
Exception: Assistance Animals. I'm not talking about that 'comfort animal' someone has to keep their blood pressure down. I'm talking about the blind guy, or the one in the wheelchair...
And, on this note, I would like to say: I'm tired of Bush Bashing. Just as I was tired of Clinton Bashing. Only with Bush, I'd like to add that the elections are long over, get over it. Really, it's time. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
catskyfire's journal