Saturday, August 28, 2010
Vampires do Suck
After a whole day of farting around and accomplishing absolutely nothing, I go to the theater to do more of the same. One movie I wanted to see had already started and the other one wasn't until an hour later. So I split the difference and take my chances.
Vampires Suck was a decent movie. I actually chuckled throughout. I was worried at first because it seemed I was the only one heading in the general direction of that movie. Then two other people happened in front of me and and went in.
"Glad to see I'm not the only one." then I was surprised to see the theater about two-thirds full.
I have not seen Twilight or True Blood, or any recent vampire schlock. But I got the gist. The writers did a good job of downplaying specific references and up-playing generic references and slap stick. Kind of like when the Super Zucker Brothers did two Scary Movie movies. You did not have to have seen any of the movies being made fun of to get it.
I was disappointed because the writers of Vampires Suck stuck with jsut making fun of Toilight. I'm not unfamiliar with vampires. I've played almost all the Castle'roid
games. Read three of Ann Rice's books. (Not Interview, but I have seen both movies.) Watched Vampire in Brooklyn, Under World, and one of the Blades. I've read all of Rosario Vampire.
This movie I think might have been better than Dracula: Dead and Loving it.
Over all, I rate Vampires Suck a matinee.
Vampires Suck was a decent movie. I actually chuckled throughout. I was worried at first because it seemed I was the only one heading in the general direction of that movie. Then two other people happened in front of me and and went in.
"Glad to see I'm not the only one." then I was surprised to see the theater about two-thirds full.
I have not seen Twilight or True Blood, or any recent vampire schlock. But I got the gist. The writers did a good job of downplaying specific references and up-playing generic references and slap stick. Kind of like when the Super Zucker Brothers did two Scary Movie movies. You did not have to have seen any of the movies being made fun of to get it.
I was disappointed because the writers of Vampires Suck stuck with jsut making fun of Toilight. I'm not unfamiliar with vampires. I've played almost all the Castle'roid
games. Read three of Ann Rice's books. (Not Interview, but I have seen both movies.) Watched Vampire in Brooklyn, Under World, and one of the Blades. I've read all of Rosario Vampire.
This movie I think might have been better than Dracula: Dead and Loving it.
Over all, I rate Vampires Suck a matinee.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
History Says President Obama Will be Re-Elected.
Over the past couple of weeks I've heard a lot of mouths and talking heads tell us why it is President Obama is going down to defeat, or why he is going to win a landslide. I've heard just about everything, but one: Historical Precedence.
Going to Wiki-Pedia (that bastion of ever accuracy) to do my research, I found a couple of interesting patterns. The first one I don't think applies, but I want to waste the space. Today's two dominant parties each had half of the 1800's. The Democratic-Republican Party and Democratic Party had total domination from 1800 to 1840. Then it switched back and forth with the Whig Party until 1860. Then the Republican Party had an iron fisted lock on the presidency through 1912.
Now we're in the 20th Century. There's a pattern that tells me President Obama stands a very good chance of being president through 2016. That is: Only one incumbent president was defeated for re-election in the middle of his party's eight year run in the White House.
What about G.H. Bush? What about Herbert Hoover? What about so-and-so?
Let's take a look. The first incumbent to be defeated was Howard Taft. He was defeated at the end of his party's 16 year run. From William McKinley to Theodore Roosevelt to Howard Taft. Then Herbert Hoover lost after twelve years. Of course George H. Bush after the same amount of time.
I also noticed something else: Only one president to ascend from being vice-president was defeated in trying for his own term. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson all became president after the death of the previous president. Then they all won election to their own term. Each opted not to run again again for a second full term.
Gerald Ford was the only president in the 20th Century to be defeated for election after serving out another president's term. He in turn would be defeated by the guy making my original point.
Jimmy Carter. The only incumbent president to be defeated for re-election in the middle of his part's eight year run in the White House. You had eight years of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford before him. Then twelve years of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush.
Total that's an awesome historical precedence for anybody challenging President Obama in 2012.
2012!
Screw that! I'm more worried about 2010. What movie should I watch tonight?
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
or
The Expenables?
Going to Wiki-Pedia (that bastion of ever accuracy) to do my research, I found a couple of interesting patterns. The first one I don't think applies, but I want to waste the space. Today's two dominant parties each had half of the 1800's. The Democratic-Republican Party and Democratic Party had total domination from 1800 to 1840. Then it switched back and forth with the Whig Party until 1860. Then the Republican Party had an iron fisted lock on the presidency through 1912.
Now we're in the 20th Century. There's a pattern that tells me President Obama stands a very good chance of being president through 2016. That is: Only one incumbent president was defeated for re-election in the middle of his party's eight year run in the White House.
What about G.H. Bush? What about Herbert Hoover? What about so-and-so?
Let's take a look. The first incumbent to be defeated was Howard Taft. He was defeated at the end of his party's 16 year run. From William McKinley to Theodore Roosevelt to Howard Taft. Then Herbert Hoover lost after twelve years. Of course George H. Bush after the same amount of time.
I also noticed something else: Only one president to ascend from being vice-president was defeated in trying for his own term. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson all became president after the death of the previous president. Then they all won election to their own term. Each opted not to run again again for a second full term.
Gerald Ford was the only president in the 20th Century to be defeated for election after serving out another president's term. He in turn would be defeated by the guy making my original point.
Jimmy Carter. The only incumbent president to be defeated for re-election in the middle of his part's eight year run in the White House. You had eight years of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford before him. Then twelve years of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush.
Total that's an awesome historical precedence for anybody challenging President Obama in 2012.
2012!
Screw that! I'm more worried about 2010. What movie should I watch tonight?
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
or
The Expenables?
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Please Forward to Ten of your Friends
"...I myself would probably do the same thing, but I think I'll wait and purchase one copy of Freudenstachel should it ever see a release on DLsite. (I'd by multiple, but I'd rather donate 8 copies worth of money to [erka:es] themselves, since it would not consume as much time.)"
The point I got from this comment from Mr. Justin Satiable that's it's easier, simpler, cheaper, and smarter to just pay Isemiya and Womi directly. He's right. I have no argument with that logic. I'm not going to.
However, I have reasons for why I did the things I did. First of all I had two goals: One was to get more people playing Rosenkreuzstilette. Two: get more people buying Rosenkreuzstilette.
While Isemiya and Womi no doubt would appreciate a direct donation, It doesn't really accomplish my goals. I'm not saying don't give, go ahead. It doesn't translate into a group of people buying the game, therefore doesn't encourage Isemiya and Womi to make Rosenkreuzstilette 2.
I could always go to DLsite and buy ten copies and keep them for myself. I'm just too honest and won't inflate the numbers like that. Still, it doesn't get more people playing the game.
Why is that one component so important? How do you think this whole fan community sprung up? One guy found the game. Talked about. People reading his forum saw it and got the game and played it. They like it and did some fan art. Some guys that did fan art, and wrote fan fics saw it. Wrote their own fan fics. and other people on those sites got the game. One of these guys had a spare hard drive and sold it an auction.
No doubt that me and a bunch of others had an effect. I always felt the was more I could do. I was going to the Anime Conventions anyways. Might as well and see if I can get anybody to listen to me proselytize about Rosenkreuzstilette and at least take a copy to shut me up. I found an interesting tidbit: more people (one) had heard of my site than had ever heard of Rosenkreuzstilette. I found a new audience. And maybe, those 10 people, will go out and tell ten more.
If you think I spent way to much time and money on this venture, Maybe I'd ought to talk about those pennies I buy.
The point I got from this comment from Mr. Justin Satiable that's it's easier, simpler, cheaper, and smarter to just pay Isemiya and Womi directly. He's right. I have no argument with that logic. I'm not going to.
However, I have reasons for why I did the things I did. First of all I had two goals: One was to get more people playing Rosenkreuzstilette. Two: get more people buying Rosenkreuzstilette.
While Isemiya and Womi no doubt would appreciate a direct donation, It doesn't really accomplish my goals. I'm not saying don't give, go ahead. It doesn't translate into a group of people buying the game, therefore doesn't encourage Isemiya and Womi to make Rosenkreuzstilette 2.
I could always go to DLsite and buy ten copies and keep them for myself. I'm just too honest and won't inflate the numbers like that. Still, it doesn't get more people playing the game.
Why is that one component so important? How do you think this whole fan community sprung up? One guy found the game. Talked about. People reading his forum saw it and got the game and played it. They like it and did some fan art. Some guys that did fan art, and wrote fan fics saw it. Wrote their own fan fics. and other people on those sites got the game. One of these guys had a spare hard drive and sold it an auction.
No doubt that me and a bunch of others had an effect. I always felt the was more I could do. I was going to the Anime Conventions anyways. Might as well and see if I can get anybody to listen to me proselytize about Rosenkreuzstilette and at least take a copy to shut me up. I found an interesting tidbit: more people (one) had heard of my site than had ever heard of Rosenkreuzstilette. I found a new audience. And maybe, those 10 people, will go out and tell ten more.
If you think I spent way to much time and money on this venture, Maybe I'd ought to talk about those pennies I buy.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)