Friday, November 16, 2012

"He's holding out for a management position." (Christmas Vacation)

The Twinkie is dead. Long live the Twinkie.

Not really. I'm sure Keebler or Kraft will pick up the "never-gonna-expire-survival-food" shortly, ensuring that future generations will be exposed to that culinary "delight."

Apparently Hostess was mismanaged (shocking!) over the past decade with poor financial and operational decisions- at least according to the alphabet union president. The union contract was at the crux of the matter. While I'm not part of the union, nor Hostess employee, I can't speak to the details of why these two parties couldn't agree to work.

We are in a wildly different employee market. It reflects the global market. Cost is king. Rather, it's the lowering of costs to maintain profit margins- that's king. Hostess kept itself in America, if you noticed. Twinkies last practically forever, so there's no reason why Hostess couldn't ship the production to a low-cost center country. The products weigh next to nothing, so freight wouldn't be an issue.

It's a lose-lose situation now.

On a different note, I'm reminded of the recent news about CEO pay and golden parachutes or termination "bonuses" for CEOs that have run the companies to the ground. The defense to this compensation is that companies have to pay a lot of incentives to attract the top talent. Guess what? If a CEO burns a company in 3 years or 5 years, obviously they are not top talent- hence they don't deserve the compensation package offered to them. Incentives are for doing good, not bad.

Monday, November 12, 2012

"You fight the fights that need fighting!" (The American President)

How America longs for a President that is portrayed with reverence, honor, intelligence, and integrity in movies and books.

It's a position that requires it, yet for some odd reason, the American public is incapable of voting someone in that has those characteristics. Granted, it's not all their (our) fault. They vote for whom they are given an option for. Unfortunately, those options are chosen by business, politicians, and money; it's really not an option. It's choosing the lesser of two evils.

But here's the deal with the American people. We live in a time when information is freely passed, and available. Well, most information. The information is out there. Like the X-Files: The truth is out there.

The problem is that the news machine picks and pulls bits of the information to feed to the public. Information isn't fully disclosed, or bits are pulled out of context, or facts end up mangled and twisted. And a lot of people have grown complacent and just accept whatever news is provided to them from their favorite station, anchor, news show, or sadly, Jon Stewart.

And with this wealth of knowledge available, most of which has come about through the Internet age, we lack the critical skills necessary to absorb and analyze this information. We're so inundated with facts, figures, policy, perception, and positioning that we don't focus on getting the right data, and making the right decisions.

We have evolved from a country passionate about obtaining, establishing, and securing our freedom from other countries to a country that accepts this freedom without understanding the cost associated with it. I'm not talking about wars fought for this country and the sacrifices of our troops and their families- that's very honorable and should be revered.

I'm talking about the political ideals and processes and ideology. We fight for the wrong things, in my opinion, in the political arena. "We" fight for individualistic needs and wants. "We" want lower taxes. "We" don't elect people who will fight for lower taxes, or tell our elected officials not to raise taxes. "We" need to really understand what it means to have an individual right versus an individual want.

We have science. Get over it. We have religion. Get over it. Science will always be searching for the "how." Faith may not sync with science, but why does that matter? You can't argue with faith. Science may be able to poke holes in parts of faith, but in the big picture, does that really matter? Will it solve the issues of AIDS, cancer, obesity, poverty, malaria, economic collapses, or stock market fluctuations?

Our government should be providing our country's citizens with the capability to be financially viable, economically sound, and intellectually challenged for future generations. Our government is to supply its citizens with infrastructure to support the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Our government is to protect us from those that wish us harm.

Our government is not to create jobs for itself. It is not to pander or puffer to the media and citizens when a mistake is made. We're all human. Accept responsibility for your actions and act accordingly. Don't spin it. Don't lie. Don't blame the pressures or the system. Our government isn't to micromanage it's citizens. It isn't designed to spy on, track, trace, or detain it's citizens.

Uphold the Constitution. Uphold the office in which they were elected or chosen.

The citizens are responsible for being educated. If they can't be bothered with that, the government needs to make it easier and simpler for citizens to get the information they need. And tools to understand it.

That's how good decisions are made. By getting all the facts, understanding the facts and situation, and having the analytical skills necessary to make critical decisions.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Little did he know... (Stranger Than Fiction)

What is the deal with Hollywood writers/producers. Why has the internal cog of the movie machine completely bollocksing up the transition of source material to a viable film. Meaning they're totally screwing up the book stories when they make the movies.

Now that's obviously not news. Hollywood has been destroying book stories for generations. It's very disconcerting that even today the stories are just shadows of the original materials. Of the movies I've seen that I've read the books before or after the movie, The Sum of All Fears starring Ben Affleck has been one of the worst adaptations. They changed a lot of the major components of the story. Horrible. Might as well made a "Jump to Conclusion" game.

I know it's difficult to pare down a 300-page, 500-page or more book to a 1.5-2hr movie. But here's the deal- the story is already written. Cut out what doesn't fit or mesh with the story. That's okay. I gloss over a lot of storylines in Tom Clancy novels. Most times it's extraneous story that I'm not too concerned with. Overly detailed. Sometimes I do the same with Michael Crichton story.

Another movie I detest because of the changes from the book- Congo. I had so high hopes for that movie only to be severely disappointed with the changes in the characters (Bruce Campbell notwithstanding).

Which brings me the catalyst for my rant. World War Z. The book was done as a collection of interviews of survivors of a zombie outbreak/war. It was done from a retrospective perspective. The movie, starring Brad Pitt, is now apparently placing the writer/interviewer in the zombie battles. Changing the origin of the character as a basic narrator, recording the experiences of survivors, to an active participant dropped into the zombie events is unimaginative and a poor decision.

The book clearly outlines stories of horrific experiences and there is no real main character. To make a compelling movie, it doesn't need a central character that spans the rewritten/consolidated experiences. A retrospective storytelling can be accomplished. Spy Game and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt movies coincidentally) are both told in snippets covering the past.

Each story from the book doesn't need to be told, some can be consolidated, stronger characters could be featured more. Multiple storylines is very possible as well, just looking at British movies. Love Actually featured many different storylines.

So looking at World War Z, it looks completely disastrous compared to the original story. They should have just called it a different name, because it's hardly the same story. LAME.

I won't go see this, even though I thought the book was pretty good.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Movie: Stranger Than Fiction

I love the movie Stranger Than Fiction. It stars Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, and Dustin Hoffman. The synopsis is this: A dull, ordinarily boring man, Harold Crick (Ferrell) is going about his life when he hears an author's voice, narrating the simple mundane tasks he performs. And little did he know the voice would ultimately announce his impending death.

With the assistance of a college literature professor (Hoffman), Crick sets out to find out who he is, who the voice is, and to do something meaningful with his life. Like maybe eating nothing but pancakes.

The movie is pretty entertaining, even if you don't like Will Ferrell. He doesn't play the kooky, comical characters most of us are used to. He plays a pretty mundane guy who freaks out, as we probably all would, when he finds out his death is imminent.

The film is directed by Marc Forster, a British chap who directed Monster's Ball, Quantum of Solace, Finding Neverland, and the upcoming World War Z (please don't suck, please don't suck). He does a great job of blending fiction, visualization, and "real life" within the movie.

Another plus for the film is the use of overlaying graphics and text in specific scenes, used to define how Crick sees the world. The graphics add something cool, it kinda brings the viewer into the movie a bit more than a standard movie would. I wish they actually took the graphics further into the film. The use of the graphic slowly tapers down, but it doesn't exactly match Crick's upward swing of having a life. You'll get that once you see the movie.

The best part of the film, for me, is the scene set on an articulated bus. The use of this setting was pretty fantastic.

Overall, I think it's a great movie, one that can be watched a couple of times. A must-have for your movie collection.