Yearly Archives: 2011


The apes are back!

The Planet of the Apes franchise is coming back yet again this summer for another go but this time it’s quite different from the previous six iterations. None of the previous tellings have really tried to explain how these apes came to have human-like speech and cognitive abilities.

This is where the prequel “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” comes in.  A researcher played by James Franco inadvertently “creates” the apes that will take over where humanity left off.

The other major difference this time around is the visuals. The last Apes movie, directed by Tim Burton was almost universally panned except for the look of the apes. Unlike the obvious rubber masks worn by Roddy McDowall and his cohorts in the late-1960s and early-1970s, Burton’s apes looked more like the real deal.

This time around there will be no makeup jobs on the actors. Instead the visual effects gurus at Peter Jackson’s WETA studio have rendered the apes digitally after doing motion capture the way they did Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies.  In fact, Andy Serkis who provided the motions and voice of Gollum is back as Caeser, the prime ape that leads the uprising. From the trailer, it looks really good, although so did Burton’s take on the apes. We’ll just have to wait until August for the real deal.


Flawed TV ratings behind move to block TV streaming to tablets

Recently Time Warner Cable made a new iPad app available to its subscribers that allows them to stream live TV signals directly to the tablet and immediately a number of networks jumped on TWC and demanded that their channels be removed from the app. Now, you might be asking yourself why any TV broadcaster would want to reduce the size of its potential audience? While the networks make noise about licensing restrictions, the truth of the matter is something completely different and it poses a threat to the whole revenue stream of mainstream media.

The TWC app is actually quite restrictive in how it lets users stream content. In order to watch anything, users have to be at home on their local network, meaning that you can’t watch your shows when you are traveling or just standing in line somewhere. Time Warner’s argument is that this limitation means the iPad is just like any other TV in the house showing content.  The networks argue that their licenses with cable companies only allow feeding shows to TVs over the cable and not over WiFi.

The real problem however is not the type of device being used to view shows or how the signal gets there. It’s about the fundamentally flawed way in which traditional TV viewership is measured.  Broadcasters make their money by selling advertising during programming. The prices charged for ads are based on how many people watch a show.  For decades, AC Nielsen has provided the ratings numbers that everyone in TV uses to set ad rates. For nearly as long, everyone that uses Nielsen numbers has known that the survey results which are based on surveys of viewers are highly inaccurate. Unfortunately they tend to err on the high side which meant that advertisers were probably paying too much for advertising time.  However, since everyone was using the same numbers all broadcasters went and advertisers went along with it.

Now however, the advent of internet broadcasting turns the whole ratings game on its head. Unlike traditional broadcasts, internet streams can be counted precisely. A quick check of server logs can reveal exactly how many times a program was watched and for how long. The result is a far more accurate measure of ratings that is likely to be substantially lower than traditional measures. Rather than embracing the new technology, and finding ways to make money off it, broadcasters are shunning it in order to protect an old unsustainable measurement method.

Of course the old guard won’t be able to maintain this facade for long. Just as the music and publishing industries have had to evolve, it’s only a matter of time before traditional broadcast channels go away.  Viewers increasingly watch what they want, when they want and where they want. More accurate measurements of viewer engagement will mean allow some programming to flourish while other material fades away.


The irony of Republican opposition to intervention in Libya 1

With republican heavyweights like Newt Gingrich and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen showing absolutely no reluctance to reverse course on policy in Libya as soon as President Obama actually began to enforce a no-fly zone, it’s worth looking at their opinions from another perspective.

Back in 2001, when former President George W Bush decided to invade Iraq, the decision was made on the pretense that Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction and providing material support to Al Qaeda. As many of us at the time said, neither assertion was true, and time has proven us correct. Nonetheless, Bush and his cronies sent American soldiers into Iraq and now nearly a decade later, tens of thousands of them are still there despite the fact that Iraq has never attacked America.

Now the question is what to do about Libya. We largely stood by and watched while the people of Tunisia and Egypt overthrew their entrenched leaders and we are doing the same now in Syria and Yemen.

Many republicans are now staunchly opposed to action in Libya even though they were all for it just a few weeks ago. What nobody seems to be mentioning is the fact that unlike Iraq, Muammar Ghadaffi actually has had his agents attack American interests including Pan Am flight 103 and a German disco frequented by American soldiers. Despite the fact that Ghadaffi actually has a history of attacking Americans (something that Saddam Hussien never actually did) Gingrich and Ros-Lehtinen are opposing action in Libya.

That’s not to say that U.S. forces should be involved, because the results of this are certainly unclear. My point is simply that the Republican leadership are just a bunch of political hacks and hypocrites who stand for nothing more than to oppose a Democratic president in order to further their own ambitions.


The definition of original

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a TV show successfully runs in Britain for three years and few Americans see it, is a remake original?

If the definition of original is “new, fresh, inventive” as dictionary.com says, the answer is obviously no. Nonetheless, SyFy channel is promoting “Being Human” as a new “original” series. While it is new to the American cable channel formerly known as SciFi, it isn’t even really new to American audiences that have been able to see it on BBC America for some time now.

There is nothing fresh about remaking shows from other countries with American actors and backgrounds. It has been done with varying degrees of success (mostly commercial vs artistic) for years now with the likes of American Idol and The Office on the popular side and Coupling and Top Gear USA garnering somewhat smaller audiences. Ripping off a successful concept goes back to the origins of entertainment, with most of Shakespeare’s classics being based on older tales retold. There is nothing inherently wrong with adaptation it if executed well and especially if adds something new when redone.

However, the way its typically done by American producers, original is not a word that should be connected with the practice. I haven’t seen the American version of Being Human and I probably won’t. The British version was a reasonably entertaining tale of a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost living together and trying to make their way in the modern world.  But did it really need a rehash? Are Americans too parochial to deal with British accents? Why not just show the real original to a wider audience here.


President Obama and ISS crew talk about R2

Robonaut 2, better known as R2 finally arrived at the International Space Station last weekend after sitting packed aboard the space shuttle Discovery for more than four months. R2 is the first humanoid robot to make it into space and at this point he is still very much experimental.

The astronauts have moved the crate holding R2 into the station, but the robot hasn’t been unpacked and set up yet. That will be happening sometime in the next few weeks at which point the crew will start testing R2’s performance in micro-gravity and the engineers from the Johnson Space Center and General Motors will tweak the control systems. For now, the engineers on the ground have sent up a set of task boards that will be used for testing, but eventually R2 is expected to handle some of the more mundane tasks around the station like keeping the air filters and hand rails clean.

The other day, president Obama called the ISS to talk to the combined crews of the station and the shuttle and halfway through the discussion turned to R2. Check out the video above.  BTW, R2 has no legs at this time, just an upper body that is mounted on a pedestal.


Apple goes too far with subscription money grab 4

You have to give Apple credit for chutzpah. Last week they announced a new subscription system for content available on iOS devices and they are trying to grab revenues that they have no legitimate claim too.  I love Apple design and I prefer to use Apple computers and iPods over any competing brands. However, I have avoided being drawn into the iOS ecosystem which includes iPhone and iPad. Apple simply exerts far too much control over these devices for my liking.

When Apple introduced the App Store for the iPhone and iPod Touch several years ago they set up a system that allowed both paid and free apps. Aside from a one-time $99 to join the developer program, developers could create and distribute apps through the store at no additional cost such as hosting fees. Developers that opted to charge for their apps would split the revenues 70/30 with Apple. This wasn’t an entirely unreasonable split since Apple provided the distribution servers and credit card processing. It’s generally been acknowledged that Apple makes little or no profit on this deal since its costs were roughly comparable to its 30% of the take. A fair deal all around.

The new subscription system allows publishers to distribute apps such as News Corp’s “The Daily” and charge a recurring subscription fee for content, just like a newspaper or magazine sub. Apple insists on take a 30% cut of this revenue which is OK if it is handling data distribution and credit card processing. However at the same time that the subscription payment system was announced, it declared that any and all purchases through apps must be handled through its in-app payment system and the subsequent 70/30 split.

This is actually very problematic for many companies. For example, Amazon offers a free Kindle e-reader app for iOS devices (and Android and Blackberry as well). Kindle users can buy books directly on their devices but on other machines, the app sends users to a mobile browser to search for books and make purchases on the Amazon web site. The books can then be downloaded through the app from their library.  Nowhere in this process is Apple facilitating anything. They are not serving data or handling financial transactions, Amazon is bearing all the costs of distribution. So why does Apple deserve any payment.

This actually started when Sony submitted a reader app similar to the Kindle App that also tried to bypass the in-app purchase system and Apple rejected it. Apple subsequently told Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other distributors that they could no longer get away without paying Cupertino its due. The situation gets even worse for streaming media providers like Pandora, Rhapsody, Netlfix and Hulu.

Those companies spend a lot of money on licenses and a distribution backbone independent of Apple.  Apple provides no service to them other than then customers that bought its products and want to use a variety of services. However, Apple already profited handsomely when it sold the devices. If Apple wants an ongoing revenue stream from media streaming it needs to get off the pot and open its own service.

Being forced to pay Apple 30% of gross revenue for the privilege of access to its huge customer base is just outright extortion on Apple’s part. Most of these companies are money losers already losing such a large chunk for no reason would make then totally unviable. If they raise prices to pay off Apple they will also have to raise the price charged to users on other platforms like Android and Blackberry because Apple also mandates that media distributors cannot charge its users more than any other platform.

The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have apparently opened a preliminary anti-trust investigation into the new Apple practices.  Unfortunately it seems unlikely that the feds will end up doing anything of significance to Apple. Given that, people should stop buying iOS devices until Apple backs down on this issue. The money grab needs to stop.  Apple should not be paid for doing nothing.


Jeremy Clarkson is wrong about offensive humor

Jeremy Clarkson has always been an offensive blowhard, that’s his schtick. However, on last week’s episode of Top Gear, he and his sidekicks Richard Hammond and James May went too far. During the news segment of the show, they brought up the Mastretta MXT, a new sports car intended to be built in Mexico. Instead of discussing the merits of this machine, the trio veered off into a racist attack on Mexicans, calling them lazy, feckless and flatulent. This sort of thing is nothing new for Clarkson who is no stranger to misogyny and political incorrectness, but this time he and his cohorts went way too far.

Since the broadcast Mexican officials have of course called for an apology, but comedian Steve Coogan has penned a brilliant counter-attack on Clarkson in the Guardian.  Coogan calls out Clarkson for attacking groups that he sees as easy targets, in this case Mexicans.  Clarkson doesn’t attack muslims or jews, but those that don’t have large organized groups defending them are in his crosshairs.

The beauty of Top Gear has long been the brilliant cinematography and the interaction between the hosts. Even people that don’t care about cars watch the show and are entertained by antics like the trek through the Amazon jungle, driving across the spine of Africa or the challenge where the trio had to create amphibious vehicles.  There is no shortage of comedic moments in these episodes. Racist attacks and bullying are simply unnecessary and uncalled for.

As Stephen Colbert has demonstrated so deftly over the years, the best comedy comes from speaking truthiness to power, not attacking the powerless. Clarkson provides a lame defense of his jokes with

“there are calls in Britain at the moment for all offensive humour to be banned. But what people don’t realise is that without offence, there can be no jokes.”

However, this is not about offensive humor. There was nothing humorous about what Jezza, Hamster and Captain Slow said last week. There is plenty of truly funny material that is offensive but comedy is best targeted at those sitting at the top of the hill abusing power. The butt of the joke should be the overweight, pompous master being carried aloft, not the impoverished litter bearers.

Attacking those that you perceive as weak only serves to demonstrate your own weakness.


Al Jazeera English now available on Roku

For those looking for  more intelligent and thoughtful coverage of what is really going on in Egypt, Al Jazeera English is the place to go. Unfortunately, there isn’t a major cable company in the United States with the guts to carry the Qatar-based channel.

However, thanks to modern streaming technology viewers can bypass the gate keepers at KableTown. If you have a Roku hooked up to your TV, add the Newscaster channel and you will now find Al Jazeera English listed as one of the available programs.
Roku rocks!


Spartacus: What a difference 50 years makes

Having now watched the first two episodes of the Starz series Spartacus:Gods of the Arena and re-watched last year’s Spartacus:Blood and Sand, I decided to go back and re-watch the 1960 Stanley Kubrik film based on the revolutionary gladiator.  Wow, what a difference half a century makes. I’ve long been a fan of Kubrik’s work and he created some amazing films including Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket.

However, sitting down and watching Spartacus this afternoon I’m reminded that Kubrik also often needed a strong editorial hand on his work. Of course given his reputation as something of a control freak, it’s unlikely that he ever would have accepted such oversight in the final cutting of his films. Despite having won four Oscars, I found the movie to be very uneven and often plodding with long wordless sequences of the camera panning over the camps of escaped slaves or other scenes that really did nothing to move the plot forward or develop the characters.  Both the dialog in many places and the performances also left much to be desired, although the bath scene with Laurence Olivier’s Crassus and Tony Curtis’s Antonius remains a classic.  Don’t even get me started on the This three hour epic could have easily been cut by a third without losing anything of significance.

Aside from being set in a ludus (gladitorial school) in Capua, the modern iteration of this tale couldn’t be more different from the film. In typical modern fashion, the new Spartacus takes advantage (or is that disadvantage?) of lots of digital effects.  Unfortunately, much of it used to produce gratuitous amounts of violence. Despite that, the story telling and character development in this modern iteration is actually quite good and goes well beyond what Kubric achieved 50 years ago.  The back stories of many of the characters are quite fleshed out, especially in this second season which is actually a prequel. Andy Whitfield who played Spartacus was unable to film the second season after being diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

The full first season and each of the episodes of season two are available for streaming on Netflix and well worth checking out.


Kids demonstrate the acceleration of tech obsolescence

At the age of 45, I’ve lived through an era where technological advancement is proceeding at such a rapid pace that numerous technologies have appeared and then completely vanished from the landscape before successive generations could be born. The telephone in its original incarnation went largely unchanged for the better part of a century.  Today, increasingly advanced mobile phones have far more capability than computers and cameras that I was using just a decade ago.

Four years ago I wrote a post about my then 11 year old son and his first encounter with a rotary dial phone. Max has experienced film cameras and vinyl turntables, but he’s never seen an 8-track or a 5 1/4 inch floppy disk. In all likelihood, his children will never have seen a compact disk or DVD.  The DVD came to market two years after he was born and by today’s standards is old tech at more than a decade old but will likely be long gone in the next few years. During Max’s life span the Zip disk and other devices have come and gone while audio cassettes, VHS tapes and Polaroid instant cameras have mostly faded into history.

The video above shows a group of French 10 year olds contemplating devices that were contemporary just in my lifetime.