Godzilla Minus One does not deserve their Oscar

Unpopular opinion? The Best Visual Effects Oscar win for Godzilla Minus One (G-1) is undeserved. G-1 was great for a movie for a budget of $15M, but isn't in the same class as The Creator, which was also made on a smaller budget by Hollywood standards. The Creator is far richer and more impressive, with proper depth of field and gorgeous scenes. 

Also, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (GOTG3) has a big  advantage. In GOTG3, a lot of completely CGI characters that are so well done, you forget they are CGI. In my opinion, both The Creator and GOTG3 are far superior films than G-1 in terms of VFX.  In particular, GOTG3 was robbed.  However, that wouldn't be so bad if The Creator won instead.  But to give the award to G-1 instead of either of those two? Yikes.

I have seen all three of these movies in the theater on the biggest screens available for each.

New Flag Design in Planning for Illinois

Back in August of 2023, the State of Illinois started the process to design a new flag for the state. From the announcement, I'm not sure if the process will take suggestions from the public directly.  Instead, there's going to be a relatively huge design committee, though.

Vexillologically speaking, the current state flag is not a good design. Problems include:

• A complex image directly pulled from the State Seal, where details are lost in the cluster and not easy to draw;
• As a result, the flag also has too many colors;

• Unnecessary, distracting, redundant and poorly placed text "ILLINOIS".

 

The only thing that makes this flag distinct when comparing it to other state flags is the white background.  Other than that, from a glance, you wouldn't know if this was the flag for Michigan, North Dakota or Vermont.

One interesting fact is that Illinois created anniversary flags. I think the answer for a new flag design lies in the Centennial flag.

This flag isn't perfect, but it's much better and more distinctive. I think this would make a great basis for the new state flag.  Here's what I would consider to change in order to adopt this flag as the new state flag:

• I don't think the star fields are necessary, as these represent other states and not Illinois itself; 

• The design looks like a missile (or even something rude) in modern aesthetics.

I would remove the star fields and move the white star to the center.

This concept is historic, unique when compared other states, easily recognizable on its own, and simple enough for grade school children to draw from memory. It also falls in line with the regional motif established by the Chicago flag; while offering more strength of design by being even more succinct.

It should be noted that Wallace Rice designed both the Chicago flag and the Illinois Centennial flag.

I'm super suspicious of Tom Westfall in Quantum Leap

 

I have no thesis or anything...I'm just super suspicious of Tom Westfall
byu/fcsuper inQuantumLeap

Possible resurrection of the landing page

f

In the early days of the internet, landing pages were often little more than menus that website visitors use to navigate to different pages and sites. Software at the time also heavily relied on menu-based interfaces. Even the most expensive applications had very simple menus as their landing page, often called "main menu".

However, for decades, forcing users into a main menu or other landing page has been considered bad user interface design. Menus were moved from the opening screen to the top bar, bottom bar, and even along the sides of the window/screen. For a long time, applications would open directly into the application's workspace, where users would then navigate menus to open files. Similarly, websites commonly started directly on the content page, with navigation moved to the sidebar.

About ten years ago, user interface design started to shift back to special pages for operational activities such as opening documents. Let's call these collectively as "operations pages." Microsoft Office returned to the idea of a special page for operations in recent versions, though these pages are optional. Other applications also now have operations pages that are not optional.  (These are sometimes called splash pages.) The interfaces of these operations pages vary quite a bit from application to application, with many applications (including Office applications) trying to use all the extra real estate to provide some additional functionality.

Linktree

In 2016, Linktree came along and rebranded the old-fashioned landing page. It was created because social media websites don't allow their users to place more than one website in their profile pages. Linktree hosts a page that acts as a personal landing page for all of your various social media profiles. Linktree is a bit fancier than what was used in the 1980s and 1990s, but functionally identical from the perspective of the website visitor. From the perspective of the Linktree's customer, it provides some useful services for a fee (such as tracking visitor data).

There are now other Link in Bio hosting services as well.

WordPress

In 2023, WordPress is finally getting into this game with w.link. WordPress supports the creation of a landing page that looks very similar to Linktree's concept. The advantage of WordPress' solution is that users can self-host their landing page. Even with self-hosting, WordPress still offers some useful services for a fee.

However, for users who are already self-hosting and don't need those additional services, there's no need to use Linktree, WordPress, or any other "Link in Bio" services. You can just make your own landing page with relatively few lines of code in an HTML file.

fcsuper's place

I've literally been using a landing page from day-one on my website fcsuper.com (since mid-aughties).  I'm sure many of my visitors over the years sneered when they arrived upon my original landing page.  My original landing page was ugly, but functional.

After seeing the concept of the landing page undergoing a resurrection, I decided it was time to refresh my own. My new landing page has been active for a few months. It was modernized to be flexible, allowing it to display correctly on both phones and computers. It's still very simple, but it has some previews of content. It has no ads (yet) and no tracking. It's literally just a menu of my personal web across the internet.

However, this has now led me to a new thought. Should I make two landing pages: one for my truly personal activities, and one for my career-related activities? I guess I'll figure that out soon enough.

"Love Actually" is the Nickelback of movies.

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CpMVFRKMg70/

Likely wrong, but verify your local laws to be certain

 

In the US, the rule for which lanes you are allowed to take on turns varies by state. However, the rule shown in this image is likely untrue in most places. Instead, more often than not, the right-of-way driver is allowed to pick their lane.

Of course, this post isn't legal advice, so check local laws to know the rule for your area. However, many people mistakenly believe their state allows them to turn when they don't have the right-of-way. A better rule is to always yield to right-of-way, regardless (because you never know what the other person is going to do).

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CoAecNjOu5Q/

Facebook seems to be broken as a record of past check-ins and other events

In the past, I fairly consistently made frequent check-ins as posts to Facebook for places I visited.  However, it seems Facebook is increasingly deprecating this functionality.  You can still check-in quite easily, but old check-in posts are breaking.  The issue seems to be getting worse over time.  

Facebook was very reliable at one point.  You could look back through your timeline to see what you did, where you did it, and when you did it.  There was even UI that made it easy to choose a time period to peruse.  This was useful for so many reasons, not the least of which is planning for further activities in places you already visited, or providing information to others who planned to visit those places.  Let's also no forget the value of being able to stroll down memory lane.  

Here's an example of one such broken check-in.  It's a post in 2012 that simply says "Surprisingly good and unusual".  The information about where this check-in took place, including the town and other general information has been completely removed.

The posting is useless, other than to verify I did something with Allie on that day.  Fortunately, I also maintain a blog (this blog).  For this particular event, I was able to go back to the day in question and see that Allie and I visited Salem, MA.  I'm not sure which place in Salem is represented by this check-in, however.

I am also finding posts on Facebook where uploaded photos no longer display.  No amount of troubleshooting has restored those photos.  This seems to be particularly problematic for Life Events, where posts which contain one more more photos no longer show those photos.  (These are my own photos that I uploaded to Facebook myself, so it's not an issue of someone else controlling privacy settings or removing their account from Facebook.)  When you edit the post to see what's going on, Facebook seems aware that photos were included in the post because Facebook shows a loading window, but yet that loading window never resolves. When you reupload the photos to the post, you will find that you cannot summit the changed post. Facebook just errors-out on you when you try.

Additionally, even more recently, when I've checked-in at movie theaters for specific movies I'm about to watch, those posts are losing information about the movie.  This is happening for posts that are only a few weeks old, if that.

As of this minute, Facebook is not currently adding post to the Life Events page for any posts dated in 2023.

Given all these issues, and Facebook's track record of similar buggy behavior for other deprecated tools in the past, it seems prudent to no longer rely on Facebook as a record of my past.  This means I have to fall back on my blog.  It's a bit more work to create blog posts than Facebook posts, but at this point, it seems worth the extra trouble.

I've already started replicating past Life Events posts from Facebook on this blog.  

I've been on many business trips, and many of these are interesting destinations. However, I add personal trips as Life Events, yet I don't typically create Life Events posts for common business travel. 

It's not often...

It's not often that Allie and I talk about a movie we've seen at the theater for days afterwards, but that's exactly what's happening for both movies Top Gun: Maverick and Elvis. Maverick is a fun thrill ride and Elvis is a fascinating biopic. (From facebook post in July.2022.)

Found clickbaity video entitled "Stop the government from buying your home (the SOLUTION)"

It's hard to use a blog article to criticize a YouTube video.  I've tried before, and will keep trying.  I'm just not interested in the idea of making actual reaction videos (yet).  Anyway, sometimes I run across an op-ed that's so bad in my opinion but presented so slickly, it makes me want to respond.  "Stop the government from buying your home (the SOLUTION)" is one of those videos.  In this video, the presenter is someone who claims to be involved in real estate.  However, he provides opinions that ultimately seem to me to be questionable. 

There's a lot of conflation of information and opinions in this video.  In my opinion, this leads the video to support a conclusion that really doesn't amount to much.  This is a very disappointing presentation.

As someone who grew up in low-income housing, I find the presenter's comments about government-directed affordable housing to be rather nonsensical.  He pulls some very specific and extraordinary examples of supposed failure and presents these as if they are the norm.

Worse, the presenter comments about specific problems for some affordable housing projects in NYC as if they are general to all affordable housing projects in NYC, or anywhere in the US.  Ironically, at least some of the problems he ties to affordable housing are actually pretty common in NYC, even in the most expensive skyrises.  

Hell, the presenter even conflates affordable housing with eminent domain, as if every effort for affordable housing by government requires the use of eminent domain.  This simply isn't true. 

The presenter's solution is to rely on developers, but in a way that appears to ignore local democracy.  A major portion of this video shows a developer talking about process for a real estate development project.  Nothing talked about by the real estate developer seems unreasonable. The process for real estate development includes the sited steps in order to protect the interests of the people already living within the city and provide adequate support for new denizens.  Further, the presenter completely ignores the fact that such projects also sometimes require the use of eminent domain. 

To me, this video feels like watching a "60 Minutes" hit piece more than something that's actually factual and useful.  Worst still is that the title of the video appears to be pure clickbait, as this video doesn't address how to actually stop the government from buying your home.  A more accurate title might be "One idea on how to address housing shortage over time."

Confusion about why audiences of Star Trek and Star Wars were alienated in recent decades

 

Chris Gore is an America writer and founder of Film Threat magazine.  I remember him when we was on Attack of the Show on the now defunct G4 cable channel.  The video above, titled "How To Alienate The Audience - Chris Gore", is a recent interview where he discusses how modernization of story franchises alienates audiences.  In my opinion, he badly misses the mark.  His argument is that franchises shouldn't be modernized, instead they should be told in the traditions within which the story originated.  His examples (vague references to Star Wars and Star Trek) are based on either his own opinion about style or bad examples of storytelling in general.  But, instead of recognizing bad storytelling as just that, he incorrectly links his examples to a generalization about modernization of franchises. 

Gore first talks about the movie adaptation of Lord of the Rings, in which he admits he's not read the original books, but he is a fan of the Peter Jackson's movie trilogy.  While I agree that great choices were made in the production of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, I disagree where Gore tries to extent his argument to all franchises that are based on older source material.

For example, I don't agree with his reference to Star Trek reboot's use of Beastie Boys music.  His snide comments seem to suggest he is too close to the subject matter.  The Beastie Boys song is an intentional period piece choice that represents what a major character is experiencing.  As such, it's no more out-of-place or dated than any Disney animated movie with a musical number that does EXACTLY the same thing.  Why is 20th Century rock/rap taken so much less seriously than 20th Century faux-classical music?  

Maybe some Sci-Fi fans are turned off by this music choice in Star Trek reboot. However, this rejection may have more to do with established and predictable expectations for Sci-Fi movies more so than what makes a good Sci-Fi movie.  Why are some dismissive of music in a Sci-Fi movie that isn't written by Danny Elfman, Alexander Courage or John Williams?  Even in the original Star Trek series, non-traditional music was used for particular scenes to capture a particular emotion for that scene, so I would challenge Gore's argument on this point as well.  There's nothing inherent to the Star Trek franchise that precludes rock/rap music. 

Gore then states his issues with the quote "It felt only natural to us that an adaption of the author's work would reflect what the world actually looks like."  His issues with this quote reinforce to me that he is confusing bad storytelling with the concept of modernization of franchises.  Well, as I mentioned above, bad storytelling is not the same thing as modernization of a story franchise.  Modernization can include bad storytelling, but you don't necessarily make a story bad because you've modernized it. 

Basically, what works for Lord of the Rings may not work for other story franchises.  Retelling stories in difference periods from the original works often necessitates updation.

Maybe Gore would benefit by exposing/re-exposing himself to Joseph Campbell works about storytelling of myths and how each Age needs to retell stories for that Age.  We don't need to tell stories to preserve them indefinitely for future generations.  We should tell stories so that they make sense for us today.  Future generations will determine if or when a story becomes timeless.

Here's the actual full tiered list of all MCU movies as of 2021 - Which tiers would you place them?

Beyond The Trailer recently released a video in which all Marvel Cinematic Universe movies (MCU) are ranked from 1 to 27 (there being 27 movies as of the end of 2021).  I didn't agree with her list nor the method used to rank the movies.

I don't think such an ordered ranking is possible for the Marvel Movies.  There's just too many of them now.  Additionally, my favorites are too different from one-another to try to compare them to each other.  So, instead, I created a tier list, from "Favorite" to "Ugh".

The movies are tiered based on how much I enjoy watching them and how often I will rewatch.  I'll rewatch Favorites endlessly.  I regret ever watching Ughs even once.  My tiers may differ significantly from others.  In particular, I prefer Avengers: Infinity War over Avengers: Endgame.  I also list Ant-Man and Ant-Man and the Wasp higher than other fans.  However, this is my tier list.  You can make your own!

Create your own tier list from this template on Tiermaker: https://tiermaker.com/list/marvel-dc/actual-list-of-mcu-movies-as-of-the-end-of-2021-874581/1858535

Insurrection is a good movie with a bad rap

A movie in the Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) theatrical series that often gets derided as being bad is Star Trek IX: Insurrection (STIX).  In my opinion, STIX is actually a very good movie.  The movie doesn't have anything egregiously wrong with the story, acting, setting, special effects or any thing else artistic or technical.  Of course, one could still knit-pick many things within the movie.  STIX is not perfect, but its also not in the same class of movies such as Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or even Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.  It seems that STIX is disliked because its predecessor set a certain type of expectation for Star Trek movies.  That previous movie, Star Trek XII: First Contact, is an action movie.  Arguably, it is an excellent action movie.  

STIX is not First Contact II, which seems to miss the mark with fans of First Contact.  This has harmed STIX's reputation much more than any actual issues with quality.   Taken in isolation as a TNG adventure, STIX is actually very entertaining and more in line with the feel of the TNG TV series than any other TNG movies.  While First Contact is an excellent action movie, STIX is a good adventure movie.

Regarding the rest of the TNG movies, I feel that Star Trek XI: Generations is a jumbled mess that is a cross between Search for Spoke and The Motion Picture.  Additionally, Generations delves deep into space magic to unsuccessfully tie up massive plot holes.  Star Trek X: Nemesis is a movie that seems to shoehorn the TNG characters into a Star Trek: Deep Space 9 (DS9) story.  What I mean is that the story of Nemesis is darker, with more pew-pew.  It also has multiple unrelated or barely-related subplots that are better suited for a season of TV rather than a 2 hr movie.  Additionally, Nemesis seems to be written by writers who forget they could build upon already well-established Romulan lore from both TNG and DS9 for a much more cohesive and succinct story. Nemesis is a bad movie that has a good movie buried somewhere deep within it.  For more on this, see the video called The Amazing Star Trek: Nemesis Theory You've Never Heard Of.

tl;dr: Although STIX is often listed lower on many ranked Star Trek movie lists, or it's outright called "bad", I feel this is not deserved.  STIX is a good movie that got a bad rap because expectations set by First Contact.

Haunting version of Losing My Religion

Bellsaint has created a haunting version of Losing My Religion.  I don't think anyone can truly say this version is better than REM's original.  However, Bellsaint has taken a unique spin on this old classic which transcends the concept of "cover" to become its own brilliant song.  For me, I'll listen to the original REM song when I want the gritty and off-beat 1990's feel, and I'll listen to Bellsaints version when I want melodic and haunting experience.  This newer version by Bellsiant is distinct enough to allow one to listen to both versions back to back without any boredom or feeling of repletion.  I don't know much about Bellsaint's other releases, but I love this particular song, which is why I added it to my digital music collection.

Bellsaint's Losing My Religion 

Leftovers Law #34 ~ Everything is better with little bits of crispy pig sprinkled on top!

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CO-36AblWLz/

Whiteout (2009) needed some white-out on the script

I originally was going to write a very short review on IMDb for the movie Whiteout with Kate Beckinsale.  It was going to something like "This is a movie that violates the laws of physics worse than most Sci-Fi's."  However, as I typed, it turned in a reasonably long rant, so here it is.

Whiteout is a 2009 crime thriller film based on the 1998 comic book of the same name by Greg Rucka and Steve Lieber. Directed by Dominic Sena.  The movie stars Kate Beckinsale, Gabriel Macht, Columbus Short, Tom Skerritt, and Alex O'Loughlin. The movie was released on September 11, 2009.

The movie is set in Antarctica, where Special Deputy U.S. Marshal Carrie Stetko (Kate Beckinsale) is planning to leave in a few days. After finding a dead body, Stetko is attacked by a masked killer who is trying to get hold of the cargo in an old Soviet plane that crash-landed in the ice during the Cold War.

Somehow, this thriller demonstrates massive violations of the laws of physics worse than your average Sci-Fi movie. There is magic wind that only works when the plot needs it, and frictionless ground (sometimes, when the plot needs it). The escape from the buried Soviet plane is pure plot magic.  That's not even getting into uncovered faces when characters spend a long length of time outside in -55°C (and worse) weather.

Worse still, the villains are completely illogical (magical), as though they are straight out of a horror flick. One of the villains (Russell Haden played by Alex O'Loughlin) keeps appearing out of nowhere and disappears into nothing, even though there's nowhere from which the villain could come nor is there anywhere for the villain to vanish in the small base camps. The main villain (and the associated reveal) makes absolutely no sense, even within the context of the story. It feels like the writers wrote themselves into a corner and decided, "Well, dang, I'll just make the base's doctor the secret villain."

Beyond that, the good guy (Robert Pryce played by Gabriel Macht) acts as the red-herring throughout the movie. He is found in such illogical situations near crime scenes, the only way he isn't the villain is because the writers decided he wasn't. For example, he was literally found hiding within feet of murders or life-threatening assaults multiple times, but he ignores the victims and just hides while rummaging around the scene until Kate's character discovers him. In reality, he would've been arrested (he being UN or not) after the first time he was found *at* the murder scene.

There's a bunch of other illogical stuff to, like taking a tractor out to a possible crime scene, when the plane that the heroes were already using would've literally been faster and safer. The movie already demonstrated earlier that you could take a plane to pretty much any location in Antarctica because it's so flat everywhere.

Then, movie twist... There's no logic for a Soviet plane to be carrying hand-carried nuclear materials in Antarctica; but the double-twist reveal is that the plane was actually carrying uncut diamonds; which makes even less sense!

Basically, in my opinion, this movie is a mess. The fairly unique setting of Antarctica is an excuse to create danger, but it does so in ridiculous ways. If you want to watch a horror flick set in a cold and isolated place, check out 30 Days of Night or The Thing. If you want to watch a murder mystery in a cold an isolated place, check out Fargo. If you want to see Kate Beckinsale naked, check out Uncovered. If you want to see people surviving the challenging Antarctica environment while investigating meteorites, check out Eight Below.  If you want to watch a beautiful hero with special ice powers, see Frozen.  Pretty much any thing Whiteout tries to do is done significantly better by another movie.

  

  

One the plus side, Kate's attempt at a generic American accent (playing a U.S. Marshal) was pretty good.

Why I don't fear a US Constitutional Convention and yet still do not want one

Also read Article 1 section 2
paragraph 3 of the U.S.
Constitution and why you
aren't being represented!

There are four methods to change the Constitution via the Amendment process.  

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” -Article V, The United States Constitution, 1787^[1]

That is to say:

• 2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators. This process has been used for 26 successful amendments.
• 2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states.  This process has been used for 1 successful amendment.
• 2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress (House and Senate) to create a Constitutional Convention, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators.  This process has never been used.
• 2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress to create a Constitutional Convention, followed up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states.  This process has never been used.

Guess what‽ It's actually harder to change the US Constitution via the Constitutional Convention method.  Congress is still heavily involved in the process. 

A Constitutional Convention doesn't get to magically change the Constitution at will.  All the Constitutional Convention does is provide a forum separate from the US House and Senate to discuss a proposed Amendment, then vote to bring the proposal to individual states, with a 2/3rds super majority required to do so. The requirement for ratification of the Amendment is still the same. 3/4ths of all state legislatures or 3/4 of ratifying conventions from all states.

The Constitutional Convention is a very unstable route to take, as fundamental questions about the process are not addressed in the Constitution.^[2] For example, there are no quorum rules for discussions once the convention is underway.  Also, does each state get one representative at the convention, or is representation equal to the Electoral College with voting among the representatives of a state to decide their state's vote?  Then, what happens if a state rescinds its application for the convention and the convention is no longer requested by the required 2/3rd of states?  What happens if such an application is rescinded during or after the convention takes place?  Since the convention is still organized by the US Congress, does Congress have the ability to limit the scope of the convention (i.e., "what's your hot take on this proposed amendment" as opposed to "go ahead and write a new amendment")?  Do the state applications limit the scope themselves?  If the scope is limited, could Congress or Federal Courts invalidate the convention approval if the scope is deemed to be exceeded?  Etc.

Anyway, I foresee that we'd have nothing short of a political quagmire if a Constitution Convention is ever established.  Most likely result is no changes will come of it, save for a bunch of lawsuits questioning every step along the way.  Those lawsuits may answer some questions about the process by the courts, but that would only benefit future generations in their attempts to have their own Constitutional Conventions.

Also see: How to find your US representatives and tweet them

Doctor Sleep and all, without spoilers

Movie sequels often fail in many aspects.  Sequels that come many years after the original often fail for even more reasons.  The filming style of the original movie is often clearly a product of the time within which the movie is made. If a sequel comes much later, there's very little chance of successfully capturing the same style and general feel of the original movie.  This is especially true of Kubrick movies and their sequels.  But the sequels don't have to be failures, even when they fail to recreate the original.

Two Kubrick movies now have cinematic sequels (not including TV series).  2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) continued the story of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Doctor Sleep continued the story of The Shining.

2010, briefly

2010 was a good movie.  To its credit, it doesn't appear to even attempt to recreate 2001's style and feel.  Much like 2001 was a movie of its time (1960's), 2010 was very much a 1980's movie.  However, unlike 2001, 2010 hasn't aged well, though it is still enjoyable to rewatch (if you can overlook some of the inferior special effects and filming techniques).  If you wish to see full reviews, please see 2010: The Forgotten Odyssey - A Video Essay and 2010: The Year We Make Contact Review.

Doctor Sleep

Although Doctor Sleep (2019) borrows heavily from The Shining (1980) in terms of certain imagery and plot points, it is its own movie in other ways.  Mainly, Doctor Sleep is very rewatchable.  It pulls the curtain back on some of the supernatural elements of The Shining (trying to explain them), but does so in a way that works well for the story.  Doctor Sleep actually does a much better job of character development and arc.  

In The Shining, Shelley Duvall and Jack Nicholson never feel like a couple.  Also, the viewer never really gets the sense that it's the hotel itself that drives Jack's character mad; characters being very one-dimensional.  Despite the praise Kubrick often gets for his movies, and the fandom of The Shining, it's not a true masterpiece in my mind.  In fact, if you compare Rotten Tomatoes (RT) scores of Kubrick's films, The Shining is actually near the bottom of the list.  Even though Eyes Wide Shut has a lower RT score, I actually think it's a superior movie to The Shining.

Table featuring the critical reception of films directed by Stanley Kubrick

Year	Film	Rotten Tomatoes[62]	Metacritic[63]
1964	Dr. Strangelove	98% (91 reviews)	97 (32 reviews)
1956	The Killing	98% (41 reviews)	91 (15 reviews)
1957	Paths of Glory	95% (60 reviews)	90 (18 reviews)
1960	Spartacus	93% (61 reviews)	87 (17 reviews)
1968	2001: A Space Odyssey	92% (113 reviews)	84 (25 reviews)
1987	Full Metal Jacket	92% (83 reviews)	76 (19 reviews)
1975	Barry Lyndon	91% (74 reviews)	89 (21 reviews)
1962	Lolita	91% (43 reviews)	79 (14 reviews)
1971	A Clockwork Orange	86% (71 reviews)	77 (21 reviews)
1955	Killer's Kiss	86% (21 reviews)	N/A
1980	The Shining	84% (95 reviews)	66 (26 reviews)
1999	Eyes Wide Shut	75% (158 reviews)	68 (34 reviews)
1953	Fear and Desire	75% (16 reviews)	N/A

Character of Danny in Doctor Sleep is the adult version of Danny as a child in The Shining.  However, in Doctor Sleep, Danny is fully-fleshed-out character with purpose and solid reasons for doing certain things.  As with 2010, Doctor Sleep is more conventionally filmed than Kubrick movies.  But with Doctor Sleep, there is a unique style that makes it uniquely enjoyable, particularly when it explores supernatural interactions.  

The Shining has a few iconic scenes for which the movie is loved by many.  There's no question that The Shining has influenced our culture far more than Doctor Sleep can.  However, for me, I'd rather rewatch Doctor Sleep rather than The Shining.  That said, due to some of the choices made by the writer and director of Doctor Sleep, the movie cannot stand on its own in other ways.  It still needs The Shining as its foundation, due to all the callbacks and fan-service.  Even still, I wouldn't watch The Shining and Doctor Sleep back-to-back since the movies are so stylistically different; there isn't a good flow between them (even though they share some imagery).  Watch both, but watch them at different times.

Pay it to Payphones or don't

So, I went down a short rabbit hole when I saw a payphone in a movie review for Secret Obsession. Of course, payphones aren't common any more, so seeing one featured in a new movie was a bit of a surprize. 

So, first, Secret Obsession is a really bad, in my opinion.  I tried to watch, but had to stop.  This movie review does a good job at explaining why:

The movie shows the protagonist stopping to use a payphone to call 911.  Unfortunately, she didn't have change (coins) or phone card.   There's a problem with this scene.  I tweeted this, thinking that was all I was going to do:

If, by some weird series of events, you end up needing to call 911 but your #cellphone isn't available AND you happen to be near an archaic #payphone (in the US), you can still use that payphone to call 911 without the need for money nor a phone card. #psa #themoreyouknow

— fcsuper (@fcsuper) February 23, 2021

That wasn't the end of it, though.  I remembered that there's still some payphones in service, so I looked it up.  That's when I ran into the fact that there's still over 100K payphones in the US, and that each payphone can still earn a profit with as few as three 50¢ calls per day.

Was that the end?  No.  I remembered that I somehow ended up at the movie theater to see Phone Booth back in 2003.  It's about this guy of questionable morals who is trapped in a phone booth by a sniper out to prove a point.  The guy is played by Colin Farrell.  The movie was made near the end of the payphone era.  Had this movie come out just a few years later, it would've already been too dated for people to relate to it.

So, that brings me back to start.  Secret Obsession was released in 2019.  The entire plot is built upon the conflict that starts with the main character who gets out of her car while being chased to run to a payphone in a phone booth to call 911 (emergency services in the US).  She doesn't have change, so the phone doesn't work.  It's 2019.  Why doesn't she have a cellphone?  Even if that option was somehow not available, all payphones in the US allow 911 calls without payment, as noted in my tweet (and the movie review shown above).  For who was this movie made?  ...in 2019?

Do And Die, not Do or Die - common misquote

The poem by Lord Alfred Tennyson called The Charge of the Light Brigade is often misquoted.  Lines 14 and 15 are commonly spoken as "Ours is not to ask why, but to do or die", or something similar.  The key here is that a choice is present; "do or die".  In other words, we follow our orders or be will held accountable.  Or perhaps, do or die trying.

However, within the actual poem (below), such a choice never is present.  The lines are actually "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die".  The soldiers of the poem never question their order, even though the order is clearly erroneous.  For these soldiers, these six hundred brigaders, a choice is never even in their thoughts.  They would ride headlong into cannon fire, being cut to pieces, while knowing there was no hope of success nor life afterwards.  

When one applies this poem to one's own situation, the phrase "do and die" is far more powerful, potent and critical.  No choice is available, even though the required action surely leads to failure.  In this regard, one might be unintentionally critiquing their orders as folly.

Of course, the poem is poetic. Though the poem does mention some survivors, it romanticizes the sacrifice of the brigade on the whole.  In reality, many of the soldiers survived.  Further, history has characterised the order to charge as a misunderstanding or miscommunication.  However, the order being a mistake of some sort is not undermined by the fact that some brigaders survived.  The Light Brigade was decimated in their charge of the cannons, and that decimation was obviously inevitable. 

The Charge of the Light Brigade

BY ALFRED, LORD TENNYSON

                    I

Half a league, half a league,

Half a league onward,

All in the valley of Death

   Rode the six hundred.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!

Charge for the guns!” he said.

Into the valley of Death

   Rode the six hundred.

                    II

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”

Was there a man dismayed?

Not though the soldier knew

   Someone had blundered.

   Theirs not to make reply,

   Theirs not to reason why,

   Theirs but to do and die.

   Into the valley of Death

   Rode the six hundred.

                  III

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them

   Volleyed and thundered;

Stormed at with shot and shell,

Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death,

Into the mouth of hell

   Rode the six hundred.

                   IV

Flashed all their sabres bare,

Flashed as they turned in air

Sabring the gunners there,

Charging an army, while

   All the world wondered.

Plunged in the battery-smoke

Right through the line they broke;

Cossack and Russian

Reeled from the sabre stroke

   Shattered and sundered.

Then they rode back, but not

   Not the six hundred.

                    V

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon behind them

   Volleyed and thundered;

Stormed at with shot and shell,

While horse and hero fell.

They that had fought so well

Came through the jaws of Death,

Back from the mouth of hell,

All that was left of them,

   Left of six hundred.

                   VI

When can their glory fade?

O the wild charge they made!

   All the world wondered.

Honour the charge they made!

Honour the Light Brigade,

   Noble six hundred!

You get a bad Irish accent! And you! What's that? You are Irish? You get a bad Irish accent too!

Irish are a hard group to actually offend.  Someone said "hold my beer" and this abomination was birthed straight from the bowels of ifreann.  First, the reaction:

I love Emily Blunt and Christopher Walken, or at least I used to.  See what I mean here:

No, this isn't an SNL spoof.  My insides hurt.  My ears hurt.  My head hurts.  My eyes hurt.  Every one of my distal phalanxes hurt.  

Dublin Airport tweeted "Is there such a thing as accent police? If so, somebody better call ‘em. On the upside, Ireland looks nice."  Leave it to an Irish airport to find something positive in light of such painful accents.  Yes, it's so bad that even the Dublin Airport has something to say about it.