It would appear with the release of iTunes 7.4, Apple has enabled:
Closed Captioning.
This has been the great divide for me on getting an iPod for myself or anyone in the family. Without closed captioning.. why would I buy Video media? I can't enjoy it with shimmeringjemmy... so what's the point.
As of this writing, none of the iTunes-purchased videos we tested had any closed captioning information available. It is also unclear whether Apple will identify videos with closed captioning within the iTunes Store, or how this support will work with self-encoded content. Presumably third-party software developers will find a way to convert closed-captioning from other content sources to take advantage of this at some point as well.
The new lineup of iPod devices announced yesterday also includes the closed-captioning capability, and offers the ability to turn captions on or off within the “Video” settings. It is unknown at this point when firmware updates may be available to add this capabilities to existing devices like the Apple TV or iPhone.
I've downloaded a demo of an application called "MovCaptioner"
This app will let you manually caption any quicktime file. So I'm going to try that with a Podcast of mine and see how it works.
More forthcoming.
Tags:apple, deaf, ipod, media Current Mood: contemplative Current Music: comprehendable
It is obvious that the film will not be able to replicate the book.
On the surface I am minorly twigged by the animation. You see shapes riding about ontrains and cars. The plot and animation and casting suggests that they have done away with Abbot's less than subtle poke at the treatment of women in society at the time of the book's publishing. And the shapes are all in colours.
That being said... where do you go with this concept if you were to go to a movie? It's all about the square in his society. A society based on allegory of the problems and limitations of our own society. And he meets someone who 'takes him beyond' helps him transcend his beliefs.
I think the film will have more of a chance of success if it doesn't try to be everything in the book, but get the spirit. Personally, the film could be as downright subversive as some of the early stuff by Walt was (if you knew what you were looking at).
I am torn on this idea too. While the story (with its human counterparts and high attention to detail) might make it easier to create a faithful film reproduction... I think the concept is more important.
Sadly, I don't have a lot of faith. Films of late (especially remakes or conversions from novels) have been revenue generators based on equations. They aren't interested in what made the original a success, they are interested in capitalizing on the name of the previous success carrying something they think is popular.
Case in point: Rollerball (1975). For those unfamiliar, Rollerball was a science fiction film that took place in the 'not-too-distant' future. Countries had been replaced by Corporations that were based in major cities. Instead of Wars... disagreements were carried out by a team from each coorporation playing a dangerous game called Rollerball. Pay no attention that it was based on the 70's craze of "Roller Derby". The hook of the film comes when one player is realized to be 'too good' for the game, the corporations must remove him (though bribery, cajoling or manipulation) to prevent the balance of corporate society from falling over.
In short a stunning film about one man standing up against an army of 'them'
In 2002, MGM released a remake. Producer/Director John McTiernan went so far to say, "We're an action movie that won't get mired in all that socio-political stuff. (I can't find a reference). Gone is the future utopian society. Gone is all of the analytical world view than still shows the strength of one mans character. Let's just have people beat each other up. Because beating each other up is what it's about.
I fear that at worst, Flatland will be a CGI spectacular (at least CGI on a level that is neither Dreamworks nor Pixar^H^H^H^H^H Disney. At best it will be a fusion of Abbot's writing, modern social undertones, and subversive ways to climb out of the singlemindedness that so many are guilty of.
Only time will tell. As for me... I'm just little flat words on your screen. What do I know ;?)
I was prompted to post this morning, not because of the video but because of a comment associated with it:
For a little history, this Sesame Street segment dates back to about 1971. It ran until about 1974. It features a character now lost to history: Roosevelt Franklin. The character and his mother perform an R&B recitation of the alphabet.
One user posted: I don't think you could get away today with depicting black people as puppets in a stereotypical way. Not pc. But I meant crazy in an over the top effort kind of way to be funny - crazy is a funny way ... I'm not so into this stuff, my 36 yr old sister sent this to me - this stuff cracks her up
Sadly, one of the things that Sesame Street seems to have lost is non-monster muppets. The sound effects man with the Derby, Prairie Dawn, and the Roosevelt Franklin kids did more for the show and culture than people gave them credit for. Franklin and family were lavender. The Sound effects man (and one of Roosevelt's friends) were royal blue. When put along the already multi-racial human cast... who had time to organize characters by colour. It was simply another distinguishing feature. Personally, I think the show did wonders to reduce the concept of racism in a very subtle and downright-subversive manner.
The video does admittedly show puppets 'of colour' performing what is pretty much contemporary 'new york urban' music of the early 70's. Schoolhouse rock also utilized this technique in the video's for six, nine, and verb. Personally, I don't find this "stereotyping" anymore than showing anything appreciated by any subset of society. You might as well outlaw "Villa Alegra", "Happy Days", and "You Can't Do That On Television" because they are aimed at cultural subsets.
Here's the snippet. You decide:
If you want to see the horrid underbelly of edumacation sic. Here's a treat in appreciation of irony and satire.
For those watching Heroes, the License plate on Hiro's father's car was in fact "NCC 1701". For those who aren't watching... Hiro's father is being played by George Takei
All I have to say about tonight's episode...
That's probably going to greatly reduce the number of "Claire-Peter" 'shippers
Weekend retreat and the sexualization of the Superbowl
I'm not really going to go into the weekend concerning the Horizon Oasis officer's retreat. I will summarize by saying it was wonderful, productive, and I have great enthusiasm for the body's direction.
I got home in time to watch the Superbowl. I really had little interest in who won. The first half was good, the second half... well, Sexy Rexy and the Bears kinda collapsed on themselves.
But of course... the ads.
This year's winner hands down had to be "Career Builder." The monkeys never really worked for me and this years Corporate Grind meets Survivor was stunningly well done.
2nd place goes to Budweiser (whose Bud Light feel-good ads got old) who may have been hit or miss but the King of the Crabs spot was wonderful.
Points to Diamond foods for the most surreal moment with Robert Goulet.
But a special nod to the challenging of middle America with two very non-standard sexual moments.
I believe it was snickers that showed two men kissing. (right near the beginning) but the Bulls-eye had to be an incredibly tame and entertaining Prince mini concert right down to the shadow show of his AMAZINGLY phallic guitar.
I just never noticed that in the old "Glyph" and boy did he show it on TV.
Interestingly... no news agency has commented on this.
So... quiet Superbowl. Good, productive weekend. Long week ahead.
I'm not going to go into a complete review of The Aristocrats which I finally saw on Netflix today while on baby watch.
Suffice it to say... It was amazing. I loved it. And I don't recommend it to anyone unless you can transcend vulgarity to see the meta-humour.
I would like to point out 2 things from the documentary. One is an fantastically performed version of the joke as a series of card tricks.
But the most important thing is a quote from Saint George Carlin. Because it hit me on a philosophical level at the core of who I am. It's an interesting quotation because I know it is fundamentally how I feel about the world and how I live my life. It seems to run utterly counter to the philosophy of Thelema that is also very much a piece of who I am. I see how the two paths run together in my universe. And it also makes it clearer to me when I've really pissed people off in my world.
I like this because it puts together an idea in a very simple and succinct way while not losing any of the impact of it's viciously subversive nature.
I do like finding out where the line is drawn, deliberately crossing it, bringing some of them with me across the line, and having them be happy that I did. - George Carlin
Possibly, I'll go further about "The Aristocrats" later.
It took a while, but I found my casting... DaVinci Code
My undergraduate study (well one of them) was directing for stage. This of course was complimented by classes in Musical Theatre, Radio/TV Production, Film theory...
Directing is my first love. Once I get a cast into a rehearsal hall I am in ecstasy. I can pummel 15 minutes of a show for 3 hours and find driving emotions from a performer. I can buzz thru 45 minutes of material in 5 minutes and not lose the quality of a scene. It's all a question of focus.
But enough threats to people I will soon work with ;)
One of the things that is rare to most of us in theatre, tv, and non-professional film production is 'pre-casting.' Pre-casting is where one can take the media and say, "I want X to play the role."
I actually learned the process from my father (who had pretty much 0 contact with media). His favourite book was "The Stand" {i've never been able to make it thru anything by King}. He'd re-read the book every 2 years to then talk about 'who should be in the movie.'
Many people like to play the pre-cast game. Certain media begs for it. Among my favourites that are (were) continually pre-cast by the public are: "Wrinkle in Time", "The Endless/Sandman Series", "X-Men"... and so forth. (Note: I've given up on Annie Lennox playing Desire.. She's too old now. I guess I'll just have to go with Tilda Swinton)
Of course then you get into "Hell-casting" where you pick the worst coupling of Director and Media and then decide how they'd cast it. "Spike Lee directs The Music Man with Eddie Murphy as Harold Hill and Chris Rock as the annoying kid with a lisp that Ron Howard played."
DaVinci Code was a stickler for me. I knew before I even read the book that Tom Hanks was hands down the absolute worst casting ever done.
Well, this is if we define casting as "Who is the best actor to represent the character in the book" If we define casting as, "In the hollywood political substructure, which name will counterbalance our budget with a guaranteed return to make this an instant blockbuster in the first few weeks until the word of mouth kills our revenue flow"
But to be honest... I couldn't find an actor that worked for me. I was happy with one choice from the film. I was begrudgingly okay with another... but I wanted my perfect cast. Who would have made the film scream for me? When I do this kind of casting I do not think of budgets, name quality, politics. I put actor vs. actor based on what I've seen them do.
While ranting about tDvC last night I finally got my answers:
oh yes... and before you read... Yes, virginia. There are spoilers.
Much like Dune, I wouldn't mind seeing another attempt at DaVinci Code into an epic mini-series.
I'm not going to go much further into the problems with the original text or the screenplay.. that's a post for another time. And I'm a director... not a writer.
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
lordandrei's journal
bouncy