One of the great advantages of the various subscription services is that they open up a back-catalogue of films that I missed for various reasons, and never quite felt I could justify getting on DVD. On the other hand, one of the great perils of this is that you can get sucked into watching a film out of a sense of completeness, despite knowing going in that it's going to suck.
"Transformers: The Last Knight" is the worst film I have ever forced myself to sit through. Indeed, it's worse than any of the turgid nonsense that I've started but abandoned halfway through. It is a masterpiece of awfulness.
Hell, it doesn't even qualify as "so bad it's good" - to achieve that it needs to be laughably awful, but this film is so po-faced and deadly serious that it's almost impossible to find levity. (Although the bit where it is revealed that Stonehenge was at the dead centre of Pangaea did raise a derisory laugh.)
I would suggest that this abomination is an insult to my childhood, but "Dark of the Moon" thoroughly salted that earth. So instead I'll note that it is an insult to my fond memories of Patrick Dempsey's oh-so-nuanced performance in that comparitive masterpiece.
All that said, I did have a little grudging technical admiration for it: surely it takes a very special kind of genius to produce a film so abjectly terrible on every level? And that did leave the film with one, miniscule, redeeming feature - it ends with a mid-credits scene that promises yet more to come. Can even they produce a film yet worse that this? Perhaps not, but they must try!
Unfortunately, it turns out that "Transformers 6: You Thought the Last One Sucked" has been cancelled due to audiences finally coming to their senses. Which means we'll never know.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Alternatively...
While I'm on the subject of football, yesterday I was listening to Radio Clyde as they were discussing the obvious failings of the SFA compliance authority. During the course of the discussions, one of the pundits suggested putting together a named panel of experts to judge things, in the hope that using such big, respected names, would help with matters.
The counter-argument was that anonymity of that board was absolutely essential because if they were named they wouldn't be safe in West Central Scotland.
That may be true. But if it really is, it's time to ban football, because that sort of poison is something we absolutely should not be humouring. The game, its authorities, the clubs, and the fans really should be put on notice: no more pussy-footing around: clean your collective act up, or you're done.
The counter-argument was that anonymity of that board was absolutely essential because if they were named they wouldn't be safe in West Central Scotland.
That may be true. But if it really is, it's time to ban football, because that sort of poison is something we absolutely should not be humouring. The game, its authorities, the clubs, and the fans really should be put on notice: no more pussy-footing around: clean your collective act up, or you're done.
Rangers Management Woes 2020
For the second year in a row, Rangers entered the winter shutdown having won over Celtic. They've enjoyed a winter break of crowing the shift in dominance over their rivals. For the second year in a row, they've then utterly collapsed in the weeks after the winter shutdown, such that the league is over by Easter in every way but the purely mathematical.
The Rangers board now have a very difficult decision to make. Next season Celtic will be going for 10-in-a-row, a feat that has never been achieved and may never be equaled. (Though Scottish football is so poor I guess you can't really say 'never'.) That means that Rangers must win the league next season, and indeed the board will no doubt throw everything they have at that challenge.
But the big problem is that if the manager changes in the close season, it's a really big ask to get to grips with everything that's going on, learn the dressing room, identify and bring in the required new players, and win the league. If they're going to switch the manager, the sooner they do it, the better.
So I think the board really need to consider very carefully: are they going to trust Steven Gerrard with this most important of seasons, or do they make the switch? And if the answer is that they make the switch, they should do it now. Never mind the Scottish Cup, never mind Europe, the absolute priority for the club is stopping 10-in-a-row, and if they are to make the switch, their best chance for the new manager to succeed is to make the switch now.
#8: "Raw Spirit", by Iain Banks
The Rangers board now have a very difficult decision to make. Next season Celtic will be going for 10-in-a-row, a feat that has never been achieved and may never be equaled. (Though Scottish football is so poor I guess you can't really say 'never'.) That means that Rangers must win the league next season, and indeed the board will no doubt throw everything they have at that challenge.
But the big problem is that if the manager changes in the close season, it's a really big ask to get to grips with everything that's going on, learn the dressing room, identify and bring in the required new players, and win the league. If they're going to switch the manager, the sooner they do it, the better.
So I think the board really need to consider very carefully: are they going to trust Steven Gerrard with this most important of seasons, or do they make the switch? And if the answer is that they make the switch, they should do it now. Never mind the Scottish Cup, never mind Europe, the absolute priority for the club is stopping 10-in-a-row, and if they are to make the switch, their best chance for the new manager to succeed is to make the switch now.
#8: "Raw Spirit", by Iain Banks
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Day 50: Update on Goals
We've reached day 50 of the year, so it's time for the first update on my goals for the year.
2020 actually got off to a flying start on all but two fronts. Unfortunately, those two were the ones that were most vexing to me, so I was actually fairly downbeat. And then my progress on other fronts started to stall...
2020 actually got off to a flying start on all but two fronts. Unfortunately, those two were the ones that were most vexing to me, so I was actually fairly downbeat. And then my progress on other fronts started to stall...
- Books: In a leap year, by day 50 I should be at 8.2 books read. After a really fast start to the year, I've managed to drop slightly behind - I'm still working through book 8. I do have a second book in progress, so I'm not quite as far behind as it otherwise might seem, but I am still slightly behind.
- Weight: This seemed to start brightly, with fitness being my theme for January. But it slumped into a huge morass, largely due to everyone else heading to the gym in January, and so the end result has been disappointing. Damnit.
- Blogging: By day 50 I should be on 16.39 posts here and 8.2 on the Imaginarium. I'm actually ahead of that target on the Imaginarium, but I'm quite a bit behind here. On balance I'm behind, but only slightly.
- Work: This is the other area that has started really badly. I can't say more than that.
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
The License Fee
I see that the BBC license fee is a hot topic once again. Unfortunately, since last time the discussion came up I've had rather a change of heart, and as such am finding it rather hard to justify.
As far as I can see, there are two arguments that get put forward for the license fee: that the BBC represents good value for money, and that the BBC is a public good.
Well, I have some sympathy with the argument that the BBC is good value - between the various TV and radio channels, particularly CBeebees, and iPlayer, that's an awful lot there for a decent price.
Except... I fail to see how it being good value is a justification for demanding people pay for the service in order to watch any live TV, backed by a threat of jail. Yes, maybe I agree that it's good value, but I don't see how that means I should force you to pay for it?
The other argument, that the BBC is a public good, is a much stronger argument for compelling people to pay. (Though personally I'd rather the payment be taken from direct taxation, which could at least theoretically be progressive, rather than a regressive fixed payment.)
My problem with the "public good" argument is that my trust in the BBC to report the news in an impartial manner was shattered in 2014, and their coverage of the 2019 election did nothing to reinforce it (quite the opposite, in fact). Too much of their coverage is politics-as-soap-opera, when they're not busy reporting on postal vote results (which is a massive no-no).
Unfortunately, that lack of trust rather demolishes the "public good" argument for the license fee.
Where does that leave us? Well, if the BBC did go for a subscription model, we actually would pay for it. Unless, that is, they really did get rid of CBeebees (as mooted today). But lose that, and I'd save the money.
The alternative is for the BBC to take action to restore trust. Which means several things: most importantly, they'd need to replace the existing complaints procedure with a fully transparent process that is seen to work. It probably means that Question Time needs to end. It certainly means that their review of the papers needs to go - our print media are overwhelmingly biased, as is their prerogative, but that means that the BBC can't just follow the agenda that they set. And it would require a fairly extensive change in staff, especially in Scotland. They need to change, and they need to show that they've changed.
I'm not holding my breath for any of that. Instead, I fear we'll see the BBC try to shift further to the right, in order to appease a Tory government that hates them, and in doing so squander any last vestiges of support they have from the other side. And then, when the Tories choose to wield the axe, there won't be anyone who laments it.
As far as I can see, there are two arguments that get put forward for the license fee: that the BBC represents good value for money, and that the BBC is a public good.
Well, I have some sympathy with the argument that the BBC is good value - between the various TV and radio channels, particularly CBeebees, and iPlayer, that's an awful lot there for a decent price.
Except... I fail to see how it being good value is a justification for demanding people pay for the service in order to watch any live TV, backed by a threat of jail. Yes, maybe I agree that it's good value, but I don't see how that means I should force you to pay for it?
The other argument, that the BBC is a public good, is a much stronger argument for compelling people to pay. (Though personally I'd rather the payment be taken from direct taxation, which could at least theoretically be progressive, rather than a regressive fixed payment.)
My problem with the "public good" argument is that my trust in the BBC to report the news in an impartial manner was shattered in 2014, and their coverage of the 2019 election did nothing to reinforce it (quite the opposite, in fact). Too much of their coverage is politics-as-soap-opera, when they're not busy reporting on postal vote results (which is a massive no-no).
Unfortunately, that lack of trust rather demolishes the "public good" argument for the license fee.
Where does that leave us? Well, if the BBC did go for a subscription model, we actually would pay for it. Unless, that is, they really did get rid of CBeebees (as mooted today). But lose that, and I'd save the money.
The alternative is for the BBC to take action to restore trust. Which means several things: most importantly, they'd need to replace the existing complaints procedure with a fully transparent process that is seen to work. It probably means that Question Time needs to end. It certainly means that their review of the papers needs to go - our print media are overwhelmingly biased, as is their prerogative, but that means that the BBC can't just follow the agenda that they set. And it would require a fairly extensive change in staff, especially in Scotland. They need to change, and they need to show that they've changed.
I'm not holding my breath for any of that. Instead, I fear we'll see the BBC try to shift further to the right, in order to appease a Tory government that hates them, and in doing so squander any last vestiges of support they have from the other side. And then, when the Tories choose to wield the axe, there won't be anyone who laments it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)