zustifer: (Big Cheese says "Do tell")
Hey, strangers and less-strangers, I just noticed that it's Feb 14, 2010. I started having a blog nine years ago today, on diaryland, and I didn't use capital letters.


May. 25th, 2007 11:25 am
zustifer: (1 of 11)
"Causing entries and comments to fail when posting" indeed.
I must be on a different server from chmmr, since he can post any length he wants.
Fie! This is weirdly frustrating. I guess I'm talking TO people, so it's annoying to be shut up. I suppose I could make a whole lot of tiny posts.
zustifer: (czech mouse)
LJ is doing that thing where it won't let me post a long entry, so instead of reading (or not) my writeup of the battered-wife movie we saw last night, you can look at a picture of a mouse.


May. 14th, 2007 12:00 pm
zustifer: (comics: creeper)
Look, the creator of the comic I was talking about commented on the post. Somewhat illuminating.
zustifer: (1 of 11)
Curse you, livejournal, I just want a light-on-dark attractive theme that's fukken legible and wherein the colors are non-mutually-aggressive.
I also am not much liking the default line spacing in the vox themes, or the body-text-to-post-title size ratio. I really don't want to make my own; I'm on livejournal, for goodness' sake. But arial is not what I want out of a body font, and warm blue and cool blue aren't fungible.
I guess maybe I DO want to make my own. Damn it.
zustifer: (Keep your teeth clean)
I'm somewhat disappointed that with these livejournal quizmemes, there's no easy way to track their spread. Usually people are nice enough to mention where they got it, but it's not mandatory. I want some kind of little code that you place at the end of your post, so that you have an identifier for you and your post number, and people getting it from you could generate their own by inputting this. And what would REALLY be nice would be a link to a visualization of the tree you've formed, with names marked and everything. Oh, and changes introduced, even.
zustifer: (Default)
I was going to give a go to doing a little writeup on each movie I see this year, just as a defined time bracket. So let's see if I do it. (Inspired by n0wak!)

- Wizard People, Dear Reader (Chris Columbus). New year's morning, 12:15am or so. View count: 5? 6?
If you haven't seen this, you ought to attempt to do so. Site's sum-up:
To experience it, viewers need to get a copy of the first Harry Potter movie and watch it with the sound off, replacing the original soundtrack with Neely's narration.
I do recommend that you watch it thus first, rather than just listening to the mp3s, because (amusing though they are) they do benefit from the context. The new soundtrack saves a crap, crap movie. The original is a Chris Columbus nightmare of halfassedery that plods along through its dated cg, adorned with over-enunciating children and the occasional awesome character actor who is essentially wasted. Wizard People, however, is incredibly hilarious and well-observed. The idea of forcing a new story into the footprint of another is fairly awesome on its own, but when the new story willfully ignores and waves away obvious plot components (like Harry's lack of skill), flips genders (Snape) and renames characters ridiculously for no real reason (Meowmers!), you know you have a winner. It's internally pretty consistent, despite its obstacles. The timing is usually great, and really it only lags toward the middle of the second half.
Conclusion: Boffo laff riot. I will watch probably many more times, and listen to the mp3s alone, yes I will.

- Brothers Grimm (Terry Gilliam). New year's day, 6pm-ish. View count: 1.
When this was over, the first thing I did was to google "Brothers Grimm" what happened. (I wanted to account for instances of 'what the hell happened?' and the like.)
It did not really come out well. It appears that Gilliam had some studio control issues, unsurprisingly (he mentions in an interview that among other things, he wanted Matt Damon (shudder) to wear a prosthetic nose, but the studio would not allow it. This is the level of control they command). It also appears that he may have been actively trying to make a simple crowd pleaser to get some studio cash, or some such thing. This seems more or less plausible. I am unable to reconcile the thing we saw with any conception of Terry Gilliam I currently hold or held in the past. I am forced to wonder why he didn't Alan Smithee the thing.
There were pieces of enjoyable Gilliamy material, but the whole was just empty of anything meaty to care about or indeed pay attention to (BURN on the Hollywood movie machine).
Reading a summary on some critical site, after the movie, was the first indication of one of the brothers' motivations. The plot heaved along without regard for being actually propelled; things would happen without any apparent cause (the bad guys were bad for no reason, the brothers would get captured and moved from place to place through no action or visible inaction), none of the characters grew into anything at all approaching adequacy, and the fairy tale imagery and mythos was almost entirely wasted on half-goofy implementations. (The only exception was possibly the spider-horse scene, which was new to me conceptually and pretty fun (minus the cg which was mostly crap). Oh, and the tarbaby/gingerbread man while it was still a tarbaby was pretty great. But great for no reason, really, and could have been so much scarier in pursuit of its goal.)
Conclusion: Unfortunate, empty. Wasted effort of great director. Made me long for Otesanek.
zustifer: (green puyo)

If you cannot maintain a Blomby Car article, then you should not have created a Blomby Car article.


(by request)

There used to be, I'm told, although I can't seem to find it on the net (perhaps I have the wording slightly wrong) an ad campaign or common saying about Jaguar (cars) that went something like 'If you cannot maintain a Jaguar, you should not own a Jaguar.' Apart from one time about ten years ago seeing it modified to 'If you cannot maintain a jaguar head, you should not own a jaguar head,' about something, uh, different, I also said it myself or read it about Blomby Car. Blomby Car was some old racing game I really enjoyed the name of (seriously, who can resist?), and you can see the inherent comedy gold. So I just now decided to check the wikipedia entry for it, since JP had virtual consoled up an old racing game and I wanted to be snappy with my Blomby Car Trivia, but seemingly the article has been deleted for lack of relevance or who knows what. Anyway, the plaintive wikipedia talk entry about how the guy worked to make entries for arcade games probably won't last forever, so this joke is ephemeral and this is no more than it deserves.

zustifer: (Beetlejuice: Oh there it is)
Hey, people and person-like constructs, I've I think finished my first series. I guess. I mean, I'm out of clayboard. Anyway, for the greater glory of Juffo-Wup, why not look at a couple of things I painted that are sort of accessible? Poorly composed, perhaps, but I stand by the sort-of-accessible part.

PS: I must thank feepness publically for giving me so very many icons to work with. There is no better illustration of what I'm feeling now than a sculpture being mashed into a house.


zustifer: (Default)
Karla Z

February 2012

26 272829   


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 02:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios