Comments for r e a l r e v i e w . i e http://www.realreview.ie Wed, 16 Nov 2016 10:06:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on I Have Finally Learned From Aaron Sorkin, But Not What He Wanted by Disgracedminister http://www.realreview.ie/?p=897&cpage=1#comment-3147 Disgracedminister Wed, 16 Nov 2016 10:06:47 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=897#comment-3147 Time to start writing again. Time to start writing again.

]]>
Comment on Journal, 22nd April – 4th May by Unqualified http://www.realreview.ie/?p=794&cpage=1#comment-2823 Unqualified Tue, 13 May 2014 16:17:06 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=794#comment-2823 Because the directors all want to be Christopher Nolan when they grow up? When a movie about giant robots punching monsters from under the sea does it better (the fact there's a market for Kaiju parts, the civilian bunkers), you know there's a problem. And glad to help, such as it was. Because the directors all want to be Christopher Nolan when they grow up? When a movie about giant robots punching monsters from under the sea does it better (the fact there’s a market for Kaiju parts, the civilian bunkers), you know there’s a problem.

And glad to help, such as it was.

]]>
Comment on Journal, 22nd April – 4th May by Mike Morris http://www.realreview.ie/?p=794&cpage=1#comment-2809 Mike Morris Wed, 07 May 2014 19:08:32 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=794#comment-2809 Thanks for that. Seriously. I was semi-aware I was being self-obsessed but nonetheless. On another note, and back to superheroes - you are right about them breaking the world. I think what annoys me about superhero attempts is the attempts that recent films keep making to suggest they're somehow plausible, to open up with some weird approximation of verité - Captain America was a particularly by-the-numbers example of this. Or witness Superman Returns, where there's this knot of angst at the start of the film, and then he decides to be Superman when he sees people... robbing a bank. Not famine, or civil war in the Sudan, or urban poverty in Minneapolis. A sodding bank robbery. So all it does is make the angsty-bit seem incredibly fatuous. In fact, one of the reasons that Thor was a near-perfect film was that it didn't pretend it was anything but a silly caper. If you can't construct a plausible world around your central character, then why do all superhero films insist on being seen to be trying? Thanks for that. Seriously. I was semi-aware I was being self-obsessed but nonetheless.

On another note, and back to superheroes – you are right about them breaking the world. I think what annoys me about superhero attempts is the attempts that recent films keep making to suggest they’re somehow plausible, to open up with some weird approximation of verité – Captain America was a particularly by-the-numbers example of this. Or witness Superman Returns, where there’s this knot of angst at the start of the film, and then he decides to be Superman when he sees people… robbing a bank. Not famine, or civil war in the Sudan, or urban poverty in Minneapolis. A sodding bank robbery. So all it does is make the angsty-bit seem incredibly fatuous.

In fact, one of the reasons that Thor was a near-perfect film was that it didn’t pretend it was anything but a silly caper. If you can’t construct a plausible world around your central character, then why do all superhero films insist on being seen to be trying?

]]>
Comment on Journal, 22nd April – 4th May by Unqualified http://www.realreview.ie/?p=794&cpage=1#comment-2808 Unqualified Wed, 07 May 2014 15:05:10 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=794#comment-2808 In "proof it's not just you" news: https://twitter.com/UrsulaV/status/463817388589207552 (Ursula Vernon has written 12 children's books, 2 novels, an 800-page epic webcomic, a novella, short stories, and has a Hugo. If *she's* not suited to the creative process, who the hell is?!) In “proof it’s not just you” news: https://twitter.com/UrsulaV/status/463817388589207552
(Ursula Vernon has written 12 children’s books, 2 novels, an 800-page epic webcomic, a novella, short stories, and has a Hugo. If *she’s* not suited to the creative process, who the hell is?!)

]]>
Comment on Journal, 7th – 21st April by Unqualified http://www.realreview.ie/?p=789&cpage=1#comment-2768 Unqualified Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:13:28 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=789#comment-2768 “ummmm, this hyper-disciplined militia of people who are rebellious and unruly and not afraid of their superiors… how the fuck does that work, then?” The same way as all fascist militias; by believing they're better than the others, and they need to be a strong and cohesive force to defend the poor weaklings from [insert made-up threat here]. You don't need foot soldiers in fear of their hierarchy; you need disciples. Marvel and DC's superpowered heroes break the world so badly most people don't even try following the implications; Batman writers can because we know how his superpower (money) affects things. “ummmm, this hyper-disciplined militia of people who are rebellious and unruly and not afraid of their superiors… how the fuck does that work, then?”
The same way as all fascist militias; by believing they’re better than the others, and they need to be a strong and cohesive force to defend the poor weaklings from [insert made-up threat here]. You don’t need foot soldiers in fear of their hierarchy; you need disciples.

Marvel and DC’s superpowered heroes break the world so badly most people don’t even try following the implications; Batman writers can because we know how his superpower (money) affects things.

]]>
Comment on Journal, 17th – 23rd March by Unqualified http://www.realreview.ie/?p=766&cpage=1#comment-2668 Unqualified Mon, 31 Mar 2014 23:48:42 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=766#comment-2668 (For clarity: Wikipedia was to refresh a creaky memory; it's far too names-and-dates and not enough context to learn actual history from.) (For clarity: Wikipedia was to refresh a creaky memory; it’s far too names-and-dates and not enough context to learn actual history from.)

]]>
Comment on Journal, 17th – 23rd March by Unqualified http://www.realreview.ie/?p=766&cpage=1#comment-2667 Unqualified Mon, 31 Mar 2014 23:47:11 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=766#comment-2667 Quite possibly. My knowledge of 19th century European geopolitics has corroded somewhat, but I think the general principle of British involvement in European politics remained valid: they strove always to keep the Continental powers in balance, as anyone kept worried about a possible European land war wouldn't go looking across the channel. From speed-reading Wikipedia, Russia's clashes with Britain were mainly when Britain thought Russia was coming too close to comprehensively beating the Ottoman Empire - which would have enabled them to make a grab for everything from Bulgaria to the Iranian border, solidify their grasp of the Caucasus, and seriously threaten the Suez Canal. And wouldn't THAT have changed the course of history? Quite possibly. My knowledge of 19th century European geopolitics has corroded somewhat, but I think the general principle of British involvement in European politics remained valid: they strove always to keep the Continental powers in balance, as anyone kept worried about a possible European land war wouldn’t go looking across the channel. From speed-reading Wikipedia, Russia’s clashes with Britain were mainly when Britain thought Russia was coming too close to comprehensively beating the Ottoman Empire – which would have enabled them to make a grab for everything from Bulgaria to the Iranian border, solidify their grasp of the Caucasus, and seriously threaten the Suez Canal. And wouldn’t THAT have changed the course of history?

]]>
Comment on Journal, 17th – 23rd March by Mike Morris http://www.realreview.ie/?p=766&cpage=1#comment-2666 Mike Morris Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:29:11 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=766#comment-2666 And a very interesting braindump it was too. I was reading something in one of those old-fashioned books they still have these days, which mentioned (offhand) that since 1850 or so Russia had effectively displaced France as Britain's main enemy, hence The Great Game - and that the Anglo-Russian Entente and the WWII alliance could be seen as blips in what was otherwise a fairly constant pattern. And a very interesting braindump it was too.

I was reading something in one of those old-fashioned books they still have these days, which mentioned (offhand) that since 1850 or so Russia had effectively displaced France as Britain’s main enemy, hence The Great Game – and that the Anglo-Russian Entente and the WWII alliance could be seen as blips in what was otherwise a fairly constant pattern.

]]>
Comment on Journal, 17th – 23rd March by Unqualified http://www.realreview.ie/?p=766&cpage=1#comment-2665 Unqualified Mon, 31 Mar 2014 20:54:21 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=766#comment-2665 To dump more info and respond to points in no organized manner at all: the Crimea is only joined to the rest of the Ukraine by a 4-mile wide spit of land and only became part of the Ukraine politically in the '50s, and Russia as a thing started in the Kievan Rus'; these facts help explain the Crimean intervention and why Russia might be interested in the Ukraine beyond mere geopolitics. (Further in mere geopolitics: the Russian wheat harvest failed a few years ago, and the Ukraine sits on the most productive soil in Europe.) <blockquote>and I still can’t work out why, if you’re going to hold a dodgy referendum, you don’t at least keep the yes votes down to 70% or so and not make it look like quite so obvious)</blockquote> Because the West and "non-Russian" (for want of a better phrase) Ukraine were never going to believe the result, bent or not. They'd see 70% for as "Putin didn't get to 30% of the ballot boxes." Given that, why not give your believers a bit of a morale boost? Russia is paranoid about security, for very good reasons. One of the reasons for World War I was Russia saw Serbia falling under Austro-Hungarian control as its final encirclement (not without good reason: it's very easy to pick out Serbia on this <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/WWI-re.png" rel="nofollow">map</a> once you know the Axis is orange), and they see NATO doing it <a href="http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/maps-of-world-nato-member-countries.gif" rel="nofollow">again today</a>. There's this odd nostalgia for the Cold War; things were big and simple, there wasn't any of this climate change nonsense, economic growth seemed possible, Serious Men were respected and listened to and never accused of being horrible homophobes or racists or what have you (or if they were, they didn't have to pretend to care). Of course this past didn't actually exist, but you can see its appeal for a certain section of society that's still much more likely to get published in the opinion columns. Here endeth the brain dump. :-) To dump more info and respond to points in no organized manner at all:
the Crimea is only joined to the rest of the Ukraine by a 4-mile wide spit of land and only became part of the Ukraine politically in the ’50s, and Russia as a thing started in the Kievan Rus’; these facts help explain the Crimean intervention and why Russia might be interested in the Ukraine beyond mere geopolitics. (Further in mere geopolitics: the Russian wheat harvest failed a few years ago, and the Ukraine sits on the most productive soil in Europe.)

and I still can’t work out why, if you’re going to hold a dodgy referendum, you don’t at least keep the yes votes down to 70% or so and not make it look like quite so obvious)

Because the West and “non-Russian” (for want of a better phrase) Ukraine were never going to believe the result, bent or not. They’d see 70% for as “Putin didn’t get to 30% of the ballot boxes.” Given that, why not give your believers a bit of a morale boost?

Russia is paranoid about security, for very good reasons. One of the reasons for World War I was Russia saw Serbia falling under Austro-Hungarian control as its final encirclement (not without good reason: it’s very easy to pick out Serbia on this map once you know the Axis is orange), and they see NATO doing it again today.

There’s this odd nostalgia for the Cold War; things were big and simple, there wasn’t any of this climate change nonsense, economic growth seemed possible, Serious Men were respected and listened to and never accused of being horrible homophobes or racists or what have you (or if they were, they didn’t have to pretend to care). Of course this past didn’t actually exist, but you can see its appeal for a certain section of society that’s still much more likely to get published in the opinion columns.

Here endeth the brain dump. :-)

]]>
Comment on The Night Of The Doctor, and more besides by willyrobinson http://www.realreview.ie/?p=684&cpage=1#comment-2464 willyrobinson Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:47:57 +0000 http://www.realreview.ie/?p=684#comment-2464 Agree with all of this, but It's unlikely I'd have written it this well, in fairness. Or it would have maybe taken me half an hour longer... Completely agree with your final paragraph - it's like there's no heart in the show, it's just TV made by ad-men. They may have the budget and the visual skills, but there's some very basic storytelling lacking - not least that they're forcing the stories and the characters far too often. Agree with all of this, but It’s unlikely I’d have written it this well, in fairness. Or it would have maybe taken me half an hour longer…

Completely agree with your final paragraph – it’s like there’s no heart in the show, it’s just TV made by ad-men. They may have the budget and the visual skills, but there’s some very basic storytelling lacking – not least that they’re forcing the stories and the characters far too often.

]]>