The show: JAG
The episode: "Family Business," first aired October 8, 2002, now on Disc 1 of the Season 8 set.
What happened: Gunnery Sergeant Joe Akers (Tyler Christopher) is accused of killing his wife. He claims it was self-defense and he was the victim of spousal abuse. Harm (David James Elliott), assigned to defend Akers, is frustrated that Akers won't let his son testify. Meanwhile, Bud (Patrick Labyorteaux) almost gives up on his physical therapy because his father won't come visit him in the hospital.
What the writers neglected, again: In Season 6 I complained about a Pfc. being constantly referred to as just "Private." Now, in this episode, both Lieutenant Colonel Sarah "Mac" MacKenzie (Catherine Bell) and Harm refer to Gunnery Sergeant Akers as just "Sergeant," or worse, "the Sergeant."
I can kind of understand Harm making that mistake, and I can understand Akers not complaining: in real life, a Gunnery Sergeant wouldn't be afraid to tell an officer not to call him just "Sergeant," but given that the officer in this case is his defense attorney, whose hand he is figuratively tying behind his back by not allowing him to talk to his son, being called two ranks lower just isn't his most pressing problem. But why does Mac also make that same mistake? She's a Marine and she ought to know the Marine enlisted ranks thoroughly. Besides, even though she has not trouble with everyone calling her "Colonel," she certainly wouldn't enjoy being called just "Lieutenant."
Monday, September 14, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Y3K
First off, let me say that I love the music of the "Year 3000" sketches on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien and the cinematography of it, but I have never found it funny. I'm told that in the 1990s the skit was "In the year 2000..." but now that 2000 has come and gone, it had to be moved up. I can only imagine that La Bamba's song had the same melody, and the year 3000 is futuristic enough without requiring a significant change to his song. But the humor hasn't been adjusted to match that far-off time frame. Conan O'Brien and Andy Richter frequently mention in the context of the skit present-day celebrities who will certainly be dead by the year 3000. For me at least, that's enough to distract my funny bone.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Starfleet's obsession with constantly changing uniforms
The new Star Trek film (J. J. Abrams, 2009) messes with the timeline, pissing fans off with such insults as destroying planet Vulcan and having a Nokia phone in a car driven by the child Kirk, but it also shows one thing as constant: Starfleet's obsession with changing uniforms.
The familiar Starfleet uniforms from the original series are practically the same in the new film. There is a significant difference in the texture of the tunic's fabric, but given the vastly superior resolution of modern film compared to television of the 1960s, there is nothing wrong with believing that the uniforms in the original series and those in the new film are the same, just that in the original series we couldn't appreciate all the detail. (I might have to revise this theory once I spring for a Blu-ray player).
However, at the time of James T. Kirk's birth, Starfleet was apparently using uniforms similar to those in TNG "Future Imperfect" that is, with the deparment color (e.g., "blue" = medical/science) over most of the uniform, as shown in the earliest scenes of the new Star Trek film. Then, by the time James T. Kirk becomes captain of the Enterprise (way too quickly in the new film), Starfleet has switched over to the department color tunic with black pants for the starship service uniform, but apparently cadets wear a red uniform. Then, for barely five years, Starfleet switched to dull-looking white and gray uniforms (for Star Trek: The Motion Picture). And then another change, to brighter red uniforms! The real-life explanation is of course since the 1979 film was not quite the success the producers had hoped for, there was no incentive to keep the uniforms.
And since no films or TV shows have been set in the time between the decommissioning of the Enterprise-A and Captain Picard taking command of the Enterprise-D, there was no need to change the uniforms during that time frame. Early in his Starfleet career, Picard wore the same kind of uniform officers aboard the USS Excelsior wore during Sulu's command. But the next twenty years of Starfleet show a renewed manic pace for uniform changes: mild adjustments from Season 1 to Season 7 of Star Trek: The Next Generation, then a 'reversal' of colors (e.g., doctors like Dr. Bashir now had teal on the shoulders and black below, instead of black on the shoulders and teal below). Star Trek: Deep Space Nine began during Season 6 of TNG, but apparently the Enterprise crew didn't have to change over to the new uniforms until the crash of the Enterprise-D on Veridian in the seventh film, Star Trek Generations. For the next film, Star Trek: First Contact, new, more 'cinematic' uniforms were once again called for. The dress uniform versions introduced in Star Trek: Insurrection are actually quite nice; if I ever did Star Trek cosplay, that would be my costume.
But before I bore you any further with the whole history of Starfleet uniforms, consider that U. S. Navy uniforms barely changed in the 20th Century. Star Trek: Enterprise suggests Starfleet uniforms in the early days of the Federation are closely modeled on those of our present day U. S. Navy. The Admirals on Earth wear a uniform with a black jacket and a black tie. The uniform worn by Captain Archer aboard the Enterprise NX-01 would not look terribly out of place aboard a present day submarine. Let's also consider the uniforms of U. S. Marines: up to the Vietnam era, the combat uniform was plain green. To improve stealth, the woodland pattern was introduced later. And most recently, 'digital' cammies have been adopted by the Marines and the Army because studies show a significant improvement in camouflage over the earlier woodland pattern, and they just plain blow the old all-green uniforms out of the water in that department. But in space, where Starfleet will operate, what possible advantage could there be to constantly changing the uniforms?
The familiar Starfleet uniforms from the original series are practically the same in the new film. There is a significant difference in the texture of the tunic's fabric, but given the vastly superior resolution of modern film compared to television of the 1960s, there is nothing wrong with believing that the uniforms in the original series and those in the new film are the same, just that in the original series we couldn't appreciate all the detail. (I might have to revise this theory once I spring for a Blu-ray player).
However, at the time of James T. Kirk's birth, Starfleet was apparently using uniforms similar to those in TNG "Future Imperfect" that is, with the deparment color (e.g., "blue" = medical/science) over most of the uniform, as shown in the earliest scenes of the new Star Trek film. Then, by the time James T. Kirk becomes captain of the Enterprise (way too quickly in the new film), Starfleet has switched over to the department color tunic with black pants for the starship service uniform, but apparently cadets wear a red uniform. Then, for barely five years, Starfleet switched to dull-looking white and gray uniforms (for Star Trek: The Motion Picture). And then another change, to brighter red uniforms! The real-life explanation is of course since the 1979 film was not quite the success the producers had hoped for, there was no incentive to keep the uniforms.
And since no films or TV shows have been set in the time between the decommissioning of the Enterprise-A and Captain Picard taking command of the Enterprise-D, there was no need to change the uniforms during that time frame. Early in his Starfleet career, Picard wore the same kind of uniform officers aboard the USS Excelsior wore during Sulu's command. But the next twenty years of Starfleet show a renewed manic pace for uniform changes: mild adjustments from Season 1 to Season 7 of Star Trek: The Next Generation, then a 'reversal' of colors (e.g., doctors like Dr. Bashir now had teal on the shoulders and black below, instead of black on the shoulders and teal below). Star Trek: Deep Space Nine began during Season 6 of TNG, but apparently the Enterprise crew didn't have to change over to the new uniforms until the crash of the Enterprise-D on Veridian in the seventh film, Star Trek Generations. For the next film, Star Trek: First Contact, new, more 'cinematic' uniforms were once again called for. The dress uniform versions introduced in Star Trek: Insurrection are actually quite nice; if I ever did Star Trek cosplay, that would be my costume.
But before I bore you any further with the whole history of Starfleet uniforms, consider that U. S. Navy uniforms barely changed in the 20th Century. Star Trek: Enterprise suggests Starfleet uniforms in the early days of the Federation are closely modeled on those of our present day U. S. Navy. The Admirals on Earth wear a uniform with a black jacket and a black tie. The uniform worn by Captain Archer aboard the Enterprise NX-01 would not look terribly out of place aboard a present day submarine. Let's also consider the uniforms of U. S. Marines: up to the Vietnam era, the combat uniform was plain green. To improve stealth, the woodland pattern was introduced later. And most recently, 'digital' cammies have been adopted by the Marines and the Army because studies show a significant improvement in camouflage over the earlier woodland pattern, and they just plain blow the old all-green uniforms out of the water in that department. But in space, where Starfleet will operate, what possible advantage could there be to constantly changing the uniforms?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Advice for DVD commentators
It seems every movie on DVD today has to have some kind of audio commentary on it, as if it was a requirement. Some of these commentaries are quite enlightening, while others are just plain boring as hell.
So here's some advice for commentators:
1. If it's something you haven't seen in years, watch it once before going to the recording session. It's not a lot to ask. Maybe it will kill a little bit of the spontaneity, but that's so much more preferable to minutes of silence punctuated by the commentator saying something like "It's been so long since I've watched this, I didn't even remember that scene."
2. It's OK to laugh at your own jokes. But don't assume the viewer hasn't heard the joke before, so don't be afraid to retell the joke in your own words, or laugh before the punchline is uttered on the principal audio track. No one I know first watches with the commentary on and then goes back to watch again without the commentary. And if they do that, they've already seen the film in the theater or the show on TV.
3. Enunciate! Your witty commentary is useless if no one can understand what you're saying. Some DVDs have subtitles for the commentary track, but you'd do well to assume that your DVD won't.
3a. But if English isn't your native language, you should still try to do an audio commentary, and not go for a text commentary. You can probably spell better than any native speaker, but do you have any idea how distracting it is to read subtitles that don't match up with the audio track?
4. A commentary is not the place the vent about your frustrations with specific individual actors, directors, writers. Especially if you plan to work with them again in the future. It's another thing to complain about censors, or even to bite the hand that feeds you. But to badmouth your equals and your subordinates is just plain unprofessional.
So here's some advice for commentators:
1. If it's something you haven't seen in years, watch it once before going to the recording session. It's not a lot to ask. Maybe it will kill a little bit of the spontaneity, but that's so much more preferable to minutes of silence punctuated by the commentator saying something like "It's been so long since I've watched this, I didn't even remember that scene."
2. It's OK to laugh at your own jokes. But don't assume the viewer hasn't heard the joke before, so don't be afraid to retell the joke in your own words, or laugh before the punchline is uttered on the principal audio track. No one I know first watches with the commentary on and then goes back to watch again without the commentary. And if they do that, they've already seen the film in the theater or the show on TV.
3. Enunciate! Your witty commentary is useless if no one can understand what you're saying. Some DVDs have subtitles for the commentary track, but you'd do well to assume that your DVD won't.
3a. But if English isn't your native language, you should still try to do an audio commentary, and not go for a text commentary. You can probably spell better than any native speaker, but do you have any idea how distracting it is to read subtitles that don't match up with the audio track?
4. A commentary is not the place the vent about your frustrations with specific individual actors, directors, writers. Especially if you plan to work with them again in the future. It's another thing to complain about censors, or even to bite the hand that feeds you. But to badmouth your equals and your subordinates is just plain unprofessional.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Aw come on, Denise, you can do better
So Lisa's got me watching Army Wives on DVD. New episodes air on Lifetime, derided by Family Guy as "television for idiots." But I'm really liking Army Wives. There is just enough action adventure elements in it to keep me interested long enough to start to care about what happens to the characters.
I've seen all of Season 1 and now I'm almost done watching Season 2. Throughout Season 1, I was almost wanting to say to the television screen: "Denise, why don't you just dump Frank? He treats you more like his personal property than like his wife." Sure he's an Army officer, but does he have anything else going for him that would justify staying with him? Oh, and he's the father of Denise's son, Jeremy. But Jeremy's grown up now, old enough to join the Army (which he did). I know this is on the level of psychology, and the human heart, which doesn't always make sense, so this doesn't yet rise to the level of a nit. Still, I feel like I have to say something.
Now, I do understand Denise Sherwood is a much different character from Major Sarah MacKenzie on JAG. But I haven't watched as many episodes of JAG as Lisa has, so I can separate Catherine Bell as Denise Sherwood, wife of an Army major, from Catherine Bell as Sarah MacKenzie, a Marine major. And even so, it seemed to me in Season 1 that Denise is strong-willed enough to divorce Frank. So, as I watch Season 2, I'm happy to see Denise taking steps towards being a strong, independent woman. Keep that motorcycle, if that's what you want to do! Keep seeing that young doctor! Etc.
I've seen all of Season 1 and now I'm almost done watching Season 2. Throughout Season 1, I was almost wanting to say to the television screen: "Denise, why don't you just dump Frank? He treats you more like his personal property than like his wife." Sure he's an Army officer, but does he have anything else going for him that would justify staying with him? Oh, and he's the father of Denise's son, Jeremy. But Jeremy's grown up now, old enough to join the Army (which he did). I know this is on the level of psychology, and the human heart, which doesn't always make sense, so this doesn't yet rise to the level of a nit. Still, I feel like I have to say something.
Now, I do understand Denise Sherwood is a much different character from Major Sarah MacKenzie on JAG. But I haven't watched as many episodes of JAG as Lisa has, so I can separate Catherine Bell as Denise Sherwood, wife of an Army major, from Catherine Bell as Sarah MacKenzie, a Marine major. And even so, it seemed to me in Season 1 that Denise is strong-willed enough to divorce Frank. So, as I watch Season 2, I'm happy to see Denise taking steps towards being a strong, independent woman. Keep that motorcycle, if that's what you want to do! Keep seeing that young doctor! Etc.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Are you sure an electric car can get 230 mpg?
Maybe I shouldn't be nitpicking late night comedy, but here goes: yesterday, in his monologue in the Tonight Show, Conan O'Brien incredulously quoted the news that GM says the electric Chevy Volt can get 230 miles per gallon. He contacted a GM spokesman "by satellite" who said the Volt can achieve that mpg if going downhill, with a sail, on a car transport truck which in turn is on a conveyor belt. Funny ha ha. But my question is: if the Volt is an electric car, what is the substance of which a gallon makes it go for 230 miles?
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Daytime in New York, daytime in China
The film: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, starring Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman. It's another one of those lousy Golan-Globus productions, so I almost feel like a bully for nitpicking it. We must let go any nit that arises solely from lack of a budget for special effects, it's not worth it. The film's message of peace activism is a good one, but with the production being so flawed, not many people will hear the message, much less take it to heart.
What happened: Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) steals a strand of Superman's hair from a museum and uses it to create a powerful adversary for Superman, Nuclear Man (Mark Pillow). Nuclear Man's Achilles' heel is that he needs sunlight to feed his powers. Luthor summons Superman (Christopher Reeve) to his lair to meet Nuclear Man, and soon the two start fighting. It's daytime in Metropolis (New York) when Superman and Nuclear Man go way above the Earth's atmosphere and fight in outer space. Then they drop back down to Earth, where Nuclear Man endangers tourists by smashing a section of the Great Wall.
Why it makes no sense whatsoever: You don't need a big special effects budget to know certain basic science facts. For one, that the Earth is round and that New York and China are almost on opposite sides: New York is in time zone UTC -5 (give or take one for daylight savings time, I forget which) and China is UTC +8. Superman and Nuclear Man can get to China in a matter of minutes, but it still takes the Earth about twelve hours to bring into sunlight what is now in darkness. Or do you mean to tell me that Superman and Nuclear Man fought in outer space for about twelve hours? Well, maybe I can believe that.
But later in the film, Nuclear Man kidnaps Lacy Warfield (Mariel Hemingway) and takes her into outer space. Superman moves the Moon to block the sunlight empowering Nuclear Man (we can only hope he puts the Moon back in its right place afterwards, and that the change in tides that must've resulted from that move had no major negative consequences). Nuclear Man lets go of Lacy. Lacy then FALLS DOWNWARD IN OUTER SPACE!!! Superman rescues her, and she's apparently OK from the lack of oxygen. Was Nuclear Man somehow generating an atmosphere for her to breathe, and did Superman take over that duty once he picker her up?
Look, if you can't afford to hire a science consultant, at least go to the used book store and pick up any high school science textbook written within the last hundred years.
What happened: Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) steals a strand of Superman's hair from a museum and uses it to create a powerful adversary for Superman, Nuclear Man (Mark Pillow). Nuclear Man's Achilles' heel is that he needs sunlight to feed his powers. Luthor summons Superman (Christopher Reeve) to his lair to meet Nuclear Man, and soon the two start fighting. It's daytime in Metropolis (New York) when Superman and Nuclear Man go way above the Earth's atmosphere and fight in outer space. Then they drop back down to Earth, where Nuclear Man endangers tourists by smashing a section of the Great Wall.
Why it makes no sense whatsoever: You don't need a big special effects budget to know certain basic science facts. For one, that the Earth is round and that New York and China are almost on opposite sides: New York is in time zone UTC -5 (give or take one for daylight savings time, I forget which) and China is UTC +8. Superman and Nuclear Man can get to China in a matter of minutes, but it still takes the Earth about twelve hours to bring into sunlight what is now in darkness. Or do you mean to tell me that Superman and Nuclear Man fought in outer space for about twelve hours? Well, maybe I can believe that.
But later in the film, Nuclear Man kidnaps Lacy Warfield (Mariel Hemingway) and takes her into outer space. Superman moves the Moon to block the sunlight empowering Nuclear Man (we can only hope he puts the Moon back in its right place afterwards, and that the change in tides that must've resulted from that move had no major negative consequences). Nuclear Man lets go of Lacy. Lacy then FALLS DOWNWARD IN OUTER SPACE!!! Superman rescues her, and she's apparently OK from the lack of oxygen. Was Nuclear Man somehow generating an atmosphere for her to breathe, and did Superman take over that duty once he picker her up?
Look, if you can't afford to hire a science consultant, at least go to the used book store and pick up any high school science textbook written within the last hundred years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)