I'm working on a fun little project that involves action figures, mini figs, and other similar toys. I'm finding lots of unusual stuff (thanks, internet!), but there were some characters that I was disappointed to see aren't available as toys. Here's a few characters and properties that ought to be turned into action figures:
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: There were some characters made from the new movie (although, if I'm not mistaken, there was no Trillian.) Nothing against Martin Freeman, but Simon Jones' Arthur Dent was iconic. Ditto on David Dixon's Ford Prefect.
Harriet the Spy: I really enjoyed the book by Louise Fitzhugh when I was a kid. Harriet was a geek and an anti-hero. She'd look good on your desk, but even more importantly, I think she be a good toy for kids. Speaking of kids...
Norville Barnes, Amy Archer, Sidney J. Mussburger, and Waring Hudsucker: You know, for kids.
Zoe Washburne, Kayle Frye, etc...: I found a few maquettes from Firefly, but just for Mal, Jayne, and River. Somebody should put the whole Serenity crew into toy form. Oh, forget that--somebody should have put the whole Serenity crew into a complete season. Or two. Or six.
While we're talking action figures, there was one especially unexpected one I found: Seth Godin. Seriously.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
A Note About the Comments Section
I very much welcome and enjoy different and dissenting opinions here, but I also want to avoid letting the comments section become a place where everybody snaps at one another. So...
I noticed another commenter disagreed with that comment and told the person to basically go away if they didn't like what everybody else was saying. In the future, I'm going to try to avoid publishing comments that sound like the start of a fight between readers. (A debate is cool, a fight is not.) I'm publishing this comment because it's the first one of it's kind that I've seen on this blog and because, in comparison to what you see on the comments sections on most sights, it hardly qualifies as a breech of any sort of online etiquette.
I read and genuinely appreciate every comment made on this site, so I want to avoid any situation where somebody would ever regret posting their thoughts here.
Does that sound fair enough? (Please feel free to disagree or even to tell me to go screw myself.)
- If you want to disagree with ME, I will proudly publish your comments. If you want to explain why you disagree with me, I will publish your comments with a smile. Heck, even if you just want to tell me to go screw myself, I will happily publish your comments so long as they don't include language that would offend other readers. (Swear all you want, but please don't use words targeted towards whatever you think my race/religion/gender/sexual orientation is.)
- If you disagree with somebody who commented on a post, that's cool too. There's nothing wrong with saying "You're wrong." (If you can explain why you disagree--that's even better.)
- However, if you're going to tell insult another user or tell them to shut up, that's another story.
I noticed another commenter disagreed with that comment and told the person to basically go away if they didn't like what everybody else was saying. In the future, I'm going to try to avoid publishing comments that sound like the start of a fight between readers. (A debate is cool, a fight is not.) I'm publishing this comment because it's the first one of it's kind that I've seen on this blog and because, in comparison to what you see on the comments sections on most sights, it hardly qualifies as a breech of any sort of online etiquette.
I read and genuinely appreciate every comment made on this site, so I want to avoid any situation where somebody would ever regret posting their thoughts here.
Does that sound fair enough? (Please feel free to disagree or even to tell me to go screw myself.)
Friday, January 28, 2011
Sing Along With Ben Folds
If you hadn't already noticed, this blog is named after a lyric from "Working Day," the opening track of the new Ben Folds CD. I just saw that Ben (in full Sing-Off mode) is recording an a cappella version of that song with a small, hand-picked group of singers. And by "hand-picked" I mean concert attendees. And by "small" I mean about 16,000 people. He's recording sections with the audiences at eight different concerts and then he'll edit them all together.
Here's a sample from one of the recording sessions:
This touches on multiple areas of interest for me, so I'm looking forward to hearing the finished product.
Here's a sample from one of the recording sessions:
This touches on multiple areas of interest for me, so I'm looking forward to hearing the finished product.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Harry Potter and the Start-Up Business
Fred and George Weasley are basically high-school dropouts who didn't get the best grades... but they still turned out to be the sharpest businessmen in the Wizarding world. If you want to know the secret to their success, check out The Marketing Wisdom of Fred and George Weasley.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Don't Forget the Fear Mongering
I've noticed there's something that seems to be missing from the national discussion of violent rhetoric. The focus seems to be on the violent imagery as typified in Palin placing bulls-eyes over candidates districts or Angle saying the people may need "second amendment remedies." But the violent imagery is only half of the problem. The other key element is the turning your political opponent into a threat. The violent imagery is dangerous because it is taking place in an environment where the audience has been told that Candidate X is coming to get them and that they need to be stopped. It's a two-part strategy--first you define the problem (the president is a foreign-born friend of terrorists who has illegally overthrown the government with the intent of taking away all of our freedoms, forcing his scary religion on us, and make us all communist. Or maybe socialists. Or Nazis. Oh, and he wants to kill your grandma.) Second, once you define the problem, you tell people how to solve the problem: which is increasingly violent rhetoric that we need to get them before they get us.
Fear Mongering + Violent Rhetoric = Not Good
We can't forget the fear mongering component. A lot of defensive people on the right point out that violent words and phrases are everywhere in our language. Yes, they are. However, when we normally talk about "targeting" a district, the phrase doesn't convey any sort of threat because it's in the context of where somebody needs to target their advertising budget. When Sarah Palin says we need to target certain districts, the message is coming from the same person who previously warned the listener that Obama is fishy, that we don't know enough about him, that he pals around with terrorists, that he wants to form death panels. After you've said all of that (to an audience that seems to buy every word of it) it's very dangerous to start drawing bulls-eyes.
I saw somebody on Facebook who was pointing out that the left was hypocritical for saying we need to watch the rhetoric because they used to have "Fuck Bush" bumper stickers. That's not hypocracy. I would welcome and encourage the right to go out and make "Fuck Obama" bumper stickers. The problem isn't about expressing dissent or anger. The problem is that it's escalated to fear mongering.
The defensive people on the right have been quick to point out that you can't tailor your language so that it doesn't get misinterpreted by a mad man. That's absolutely true. It would be impossible to do that and I wouldn't want anybody to try. But the line that should not be crossed is the one that separates trying to get your audience to care about your issues and trying to make your audience afraid that there is an imminent threat against them. When you cross that line, you are chumming shark-infested waters. Some of those madmen are of your own creation.
Fear Mongering + Violent Rhetoric = Not Good
We can't forget the fear mongering component. A lot of defensive people on the right point out that violent words and phrases are everywhere in our language. Yes, they are. However, when we normally talk about "targeting" a district, the phrase doesn't convey any sort of threat because it's in the context of where somebody needs to target their advertising budget. When Sarah Palin says we need to target certain districts, the message is coming from the same person who previously warned the listener that Obama is fishy, that we don't know enough about him, that he pals around with terrorists, that he wants to form death panels. After you've said all of that (to an audience that seems to buy every word of it) it's very dangerous to start drawing bulls-eyes.
I saw somebody on Facebook who was pointing out that the left was hypocritical for saying we need to watch the rhetoric because they used to have "Fuck Bush" bumper stickers. That's not hypocracy. I would welcome and encourage the right to go out and make "Fuck Obama" bumper stickers. The problem isn't about expressing dissent or anger. The problem is that it's escalated to fear mongering.
The defensive people on the right have been quick to point out that you can't tailor your language so that it doesn't get misinterpreted by a mad man. That's absolutely true. It would be impossible to do that and I wouldn't want anybody to try. But the line that should not be crossed is the one that separates trying to get your audience to care about your issues and trying to make your audience afraid that there is an imminent threat against them. When you cross that line, you are chumming shark-infested waters. Some of those madmen are of your own creation.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Denim Skeleton in My Closet
Confession: I used to think that it was very cool to have the back panel of your jean jackets painted. My conviction was probably influenced by a friend from high school who had the art from U2's War album on the back of their jacket. Nevertheless, I stuck to decorating my jacket with lots of buttons. (It was the 80s. What do you want from me?)
When I was in college, I finally gave into temptation, got some acrylic paints, and started making myself a fashion statement. This was 20 years ago and the jacket is falling apart, but I never did throw it away. So here it is, straight from my closet, the thing that seemed like a really good idea at the time:
In case you're wondering why I went with Sam instead of one of the more important cast members, he's the easiest one to draw. And, as you can see, I'm not a good artist. Even though I chose him for practical reasons, I like that his supporting player status sent the message that my Muppet appreciation ran deep. Maybe that explains why I already have three other puppet-related posts (here, here, and here) on this blog...
When I was in college, I finally gave into temptation, got some acrylic paints, and started making myself a fashion statement. This was 20 years ago and the jacket is falling apart, but I never did throw it away. So here it is, straight from my closet, the thing that seemed like a really good idea at the time:
In case you're wondering why I went with Sam instead of one of the more important cast members, he's the easiest one to draw. And, as you can see, I'm not a good artist. Even though I chose him for practical reasons, I like that his supporting player status sent the message that my Muppet appreciation ran deep. Maybe that explains why I already have three other puppet-related posts (here, here, and here) on this blog...
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Censoring Mark Twain
So, I guess this is what happens to you when you're in the public domain. An English professor named Alan Gribben is publishing an edition of Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn under one cover (that's nice) and taking out the period-specific racial terms (that's very not nice.) Read the whole story in this New York Times article.
I'm not a fan of either book (although I like Twain in general), but the notion of whitewashing history like that is just plain yucky. All the arguments against this sort of censorship/bowdlerization are obvious. But I would like to also call attention to the sheer audacity of reworking Twain. How would Alan Gribben feel if somebody came along and changed his words to remove the parts they wish weren't there? Say, that give me a swell idea!
I'm not a fan of either book (although I like Twain in general), but the notion of whitewashing history like that is just plain yucky. All the arguments against this sort of censorship/bowdlerization are obvious. But I would like to also call attention to the sheer audacity of reworking Twain. How would Alan Gribben feel if somebody came along and changed his words to remove the parts they wish weren't there? Say, that give me a swell idea!
“I found myself thrown out of graduate school at Berkeley not wanting to teach either ‘Huckleberry Finn’ or ‘Tom Sawyer,’” Gribben said. “And I don’t think I’m alone.”This is fun! I take it back, Alan Gribben--you're really onto something with this whole putting-words-in-other-people's-mouths thing. By the way, you can't do a damn thing about this. Just like Mark Twain is defenseless against you in the public domain, you are defenseless against my re-writes thanks to a little help from my friends "fair use" and "parody." Now, if only I could figure out a way to profit off of this like you and your publisher are...
“I’m sanitizing Mark Twain--the sharp social critiques, the humor. I'm just obsessing about this one word," Mr. Gibbon said, "and I won't let the stories stand alone.”
Monday, January 3, 2011
Bizarre Rainy-Day Recesss Movies
When I was in grade school, they would sometimes show short movies during recess if it was raining outside. This was back in the 70s, so our movies were shown on a real film projector. This used to be my favorite part of school--not watching the movies, but running the projector. I was the kid in class who was good at threading the projector. If you've never done it yourself, it was a great activity for a kid. It was like solving a hands on maze.
We didn't have many options, as I recall. I think we watched The Red Balloon a lot. (I think they were trying to teach us that foreign films are boring.) We also had something called Winter of the Witch. The one unforgettable element of this short was that the witch made magic pancakes. If you eat them, they make you happy. One character asks, "What did you put in them?" Acid, apparently, because every time somebody eats one, they hallucinate pretty, trippy colors.
Looking back, I have to wonder it some of my grade school teachers -- to borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton -- inhaled. Of course they weren't the ones who made the film, so it's unfair to suggest that. But, on the other hand, they must have been high to think it was good to show us the short film called All the Troubles of the World. It's based on a short story by Isaac Asimov, so they must have felt that gave it educational merit. But their judgment was questionable at best. I think it's probably a great read for a seventh- or eighth-grader, but for forth-graders it was just disturbing. It's a bit of a dystopian nightmare. Spoiler alert: It's set in a future where everybody depends way too much on a central computer called Multivac. As Multivac is given more responsibilities, it becomes sentient and suicidal. The classroom film version ends with the computer repeating "I want to die" over and over and over and over. Then it shuts down. That's super-creepy when you're a kid who really wanted to be outside playing kick ball.
Did that freak you the hell out, too? Maybe you should try having an extra helping of magic happy pancakes! You can watch the whole Winter of the Witch short here. (Warning: May induce flashbacks.)
We didn't have many options, as I recall. I think we watched The Red Balloon a lot. (I think they were trying to teach us that foreign films are boring.) We also had something called Winter of the Witch. The one unforgettable element of this short was that the witch made magic pancakes. If you eat them, they make you happy. One character asks, "What did you put in them?" Acid, apparently, because every time somebody eats one, they hallucinate pretty, trippy colors.
Looking back, I have to wonder it some of my grade school teachers -- to borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton -- inhaled. Of course they weren't the ones who made the film, so it's unfair to suggest that. But, on the other hand, they must have been high to think it was good to show us the short film called All the Troubles of the World. It's based on a short story by Isaac Asimov, so they must have felt that gave it educational merit. But their judgment was questionable at best. I think it's probably a great read for a seventh- or eighth-grader, but for forth-graders it was just disturbing. It's a bit of a dystopian nightmare. Spoiler alert: It's set in a future where everybody depends way too much on a central computer called Multivac. As Multivac is given more responsibilities, it becomes sentient and suicidal. The classroom film version ends with the computer repeating "I want to die" over and over and over and over. Then it shuts down. That's super-creepy when you're a kid who really wanted to be outside playing kick ball.
Did that freak you the hell out, too? Maybe you should try having an extra helping of magic happy pancakes! You can watch the whole Winter of the Witch short here. (Warning: May induce flashbacks.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)