When we watched the Eureka 4-1, it started with "previously in Eureka" that Jack and Tess broke up. I figured I'd just missed that episode, because there were one or two I hadn't seen, but we just watched them (re-watched, in one case), and sure enough, it hadn't happened. Season 3 ended with Tess giving Jack a ticket to Australia to come visit her.
However, someone linked writer Jamie Paglia's twitter post about it. The break-up was in a deleted scene and will be on the DVD. There we are. In any case, it wasn't much of a break-up, since they were back together by the end of 4.1.
And... it's been confirmed that James Callis, playing Dr. Trevor Grant, is in (at least) ten episodes. Paglia goes on to say that the parallel story arc will be twenty episodes long - quite a season. Yes!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Eureka - Founder's Day
Eureka season 4 is here! The first episode is up on Hulu, and what an opening it was. They've set up a situation with plenty of plot for the whole season, and I really hope they string it out for a few episodes, because it's a fun one. And we have an awesome new character. He's on the new title banner even, which gives me hope that he's here to stay. He's got a great hat.
Okay, go watch the episode now if you object to spoilers, and then come back and read the rest of this post. ;-) First of all: Tess. I didn't like Tess when she first turned up. She wasn't right for Jack. I still think she isn't right for Jack. He needed to get together with Alison, which could have been okay after Nathan heroically melted or de-timed or whatever it was (and I was just getting reconciled to him), and then everybody would have been happy. Well, Jack and Alison and I would have been happy. Only that didn't happen. I was finally getting reconciled to this Tess character when they got rid of her and I was rooting for Alison again. And NOW THEY BROUGHT TESS BACK. Aargh!
Second: Fargo. Who in their right mind would have put him in charge? This can only end in disaster - very humorous disaster, probably involving a swing dance since he didn't get to go to that other one. Incidentally, I want to see Pierre Fargo, Fargo's grandfather who was resurrected from cryogenic sleep in whatever episode that was. He would be perfect in season 4. I predict he hangs out with the new guy, though if I'm remembering the chronology, he didn't go to Eureka until the fifties, so that might not have worked. But now that we're in that parallel universe, all bets on chronology are off. Who knows what's going to have changed. Maybe Fargo got put in charge in the parallel world because Pierre Fargo rose to importance after Dr. Trevor Grant was out of the way.
We thought the time travel itself was quite well handled. Eureka is still so Eureka, even sixty years ago. You've got the scientists, and the overbearing military types, and very similar jail cells, and Jo can still mop the floor with mere military men, no matter their credentials. The contemps were just as smart and well characterized as the moderns, which was nice. The time-travel science was a little hazy, but at this point, we don't really care. Eureka has earned its scientific stripes, so to speak, and we're willing it to run with it.
They've set up several bittersweet plots in the parallel universe. Jack will, of course, just be confused about the Tess/Alison thing, but he needed to make up his mind anyway. Henry will likely be anxious to go back to the original universe, though it depends on Grace. Unless, oh no, what if parallel Kim isn't dead?? And poor Jo, about Zane! Parallel Zane is so not an improvement. Who knows what Fargo will do. He might decide he prefers the bronze Archimedes, or get drunk on power, or something. Alison might decide she likes the parallel universe better because of her son, whose name I can't remember. And Trevor... what if he decides to stick around for Alison?
Okay, go watch the episode now if you object to spoilers, and then come back and read the rest of this post. ;-) First of all: Tess. I didn't like Tess when she first turned up. She wasn't right for Jack. I still think she isn't right for Jack. He needed to get together with Alison, which could have been okay after Nathan heroically melted or de-timed or whatever it was (and I was just getting reconciled to him), and then everybody would have been happy. Well, Jack and Alison and I would have been happy. Only that didn't happen. I was finally getting reconciled to this Tess character when they got rid of her and I was rooting for Alison again. And NOW THEY BROUGHT TESS BACK. Aargh!
Second: Fargo. Who in their right mind would have put him in charge? This can only end in disaster - very humorous disaster, probably involving a swing dance since he didn't get to go to that other one. Incidentally, I want to see Pierre Fargo, Fargo's grandfather who was resurrected from cryogenic sleep in whatever episode that was. He would be perfect in season 4. I predict he hangs out with the new guy, though if I'm remembering the chronology, he didn't go to Eureka until the fifties, so that might not have worked. But now that we're in that parallel universe, all bets on chronology are off. Who knows what's going to have changed. Maybe Fargo got put in charge in the parallel world because Pierre Fargo rose to importance after Dr. Trevor Grant was out of the way.
We thought the time travel itself was quite well handled. Eureka is still so Eureka, even sixty years ago. You've got the scientists, and the overbearing military types, and very similar jail cells, and Jo can still mop the floor with mere military men, no matter their credentials. The contemps were just as smart and well characterized as the moderns, which was nice. The time-travel science was a little hazy, but at this point, we don't really care. Eureka has earned its scientific stripes, so to speak, and we're willing it to run with it.
They've set up several bittersweet plots in the parallel universe. Jack will, of course, just be confused about the Tess/Alison thing, but he needed to make up his mind anyway. Henry will likely be anxious to go back to the original universe, though it depends on Grace. Unless, oh no, what if parallel Kim isn't dead?? And poor Jo, about Zane! Parallel Zane is so not an improvement. Who knows what Fargo will do. He might decide he prefers the bronze Archimedes, or get drunk on power, or something. Alison might decide she likes the parallel universe better because of her son, whose name I can't remember. And Trevor... what if he decides to stick around for Alison?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Mall-shoppers beware
She really tried to talk me into believing in God the Mother. She also believed in the Trinity, consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so I'm not quite clear where the Mother fit into all this - shape-shifting, maybe?
To her credit, she had an actual Bible with her, of reputable translation, and kept thrusting verses under my nose. She assured me that she was only saying what Scripture said, and she wouldn't say it if it wasn't in there! I really tried to make sense of her claims. I think she was arguing that:
a) when God created male and female in His image, that proved His image was female;
b) that we're living in the end times, so the verses about mysteries being revealed in the end refer specifically to God being female;
c) the verse in Galatians about "if anyone preaches a different Gospel, he is to be accursed" doesn't apply to this new revelation because it's the same gospel;
d) When Paul is talking about the Jerusalem that is above and the earthly Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem is female, so God is female.
e) Something about "elohim" being plural, and sure that might refer to the Trinity, but it could also be interpreted as referring to His/Her femininity.
A lot of other things came into it too, like the order of Melchizedek, though I have no idea what he did to deserve that. Nobody had ever taught this poor girl how to construct a coherent argument.
I could have escaped more quickly, but I figured that if she was talking to me, at least she wasn't talking to someone else. She was so enthusiastic, so dressed up, and so utterly lacking in theology and logic. I encouraged her to keep reading her Bible, and said I thought that she would find it wasn't really saying what she thought it said...
To her credit, she had an actual Bible with her, of reputable translation, and kept thrusting verses under my nose. She assured me that she was only saying what Scripture said, and she wouldn't say it if it wasn't in there! I really tried to make sense of her claims. I think she was arguing that:
a) when God created male and female in His image, that proved His image was female;
b) that we're living in the end times, so the verses about mysteries being revealed in the end refer specifically to God being female;
c) the verse in Galatians about "if anyone preaches a different Gospel, he is to be accursed" doesn't apply to this new revelation because it's the same gospel;
d) When Paul is talking about the Jerusalem that is above and the earthly Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem is female, so God is female.
e) Something about "elohim" being plural, and sure that might refer to the Trinity, but it could also be interpreted as referring to His/Her femininity.
A lot of other things came into it too, like the order of Melchizedek, though I have no idea what he did to deserve that. Nobody had ever taught this poor girl how to construct a coherent argument.
I could have escaped more quickly, but I figured that if she was talking to me, at least she wasn't talking to someone else. She was so enthusiastic, so dressed up, and so utterly lacking in theology and logic. I encouraged her to keep reading her Bible, and said I thought that she would find it wasn't really saying what she thought it said...
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Addendum
Meanwhile, Meg celebrated her half-birthday by completely refusing to eat rice cereal. Maybe she's holding out for chocolate cake?
Take that, idyllic scene
Meggie turned six months today!
Picture the scene: it's a perfect, (surprisingly) cool morning. We're on our way to drop off Jonathan at work before Meggie's doctor's appointment. We're on time, Meg has a cute dress on, the sun is kind of shining, and two little yellow birds are twittering midair over the road. Tweet, tweet-
THWOCK.
Yep, Olwen ran them right over. One left a little smudge on the windshield.
Picture the scene: it's a perfect, (surprisingly) cool morning. We're on our way to drop off Jonathan at work before Meggie's doctor's appointment. We're on time, Meg has a cute dress on, the sun is kind of shining, and two little yellow birds are twittering midair over the road. Tweet, tweet-
THWOCK.
Yep, Olwen ran them right over. One left a little smudge on the windshield.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
A remarkable movie
In keeping with our anniversary tradition, we celebrated by having a steak and watching a Pixar movie. :-) We watched Wall-E the day after we were married, Up last summer, and so this afternoon we went to see Toy Story 3. It's pretty good. Not my favorite Pixar ever of all time, but it probably is my favorite among the Toy Stories, and we might well get it when it comes out.
It had some funny moments (flamenco!!). It had its nods to The Great Escape and Star Wars (prison guards! trash compactors!). We met a handful of great new characters, like Bonnie and the classically-trained Shakespearean actor hedgehog, and Chatter, a phone I knew years ago in the old Trinity church nursery. For the climax they found a Tolkienian eucatastrophe, a sudden joyous turn, without being random - they tied in a plot element from the first movie to save the day. I also liked the way the bad guy got his richly-earned comeuppance without the good guys having to take revenge. Good stories work themselves out that way.
And I really loved how the friends handled certain death. They had nothing else they could do to save themselves, so they held hands and looked death in the face. I haven't seen heroism like that in a film in a long time. And when you hope you can die as well as a Slinky-dog -- well, that's a remarkable movie.
It had some funny moments (flamenco!!). It had its nods to The Great Escape and Star Wars (prison guards! trash compactors!). We met a handful of great new characters, like Bonnie and the classically-trained Shakespearean actor hedgehog, and Chatter, a phone I knew years ago in the old Trinity church nursery. For the climax they found a Tolkienian eucatastrophe, a sudden joyous turn, without being random - they tied in a plot element from the first movie to save the day. I also liked the way the bad guy got his richly-earned comeuppance without the good guys having to take revenge. Good stories work themselves out that way.
And I really loved how the friends handled certain death. They had nothing else they could do to save themselves, so they held hands and looked death in the face. I haven't seen heroism like that in a film in a long time. And when you hope you can die as well as a Slinky-dog -- well, that's a remarkable movie.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Date night
Quite a bit has happened in the last two weeks: Heather and Aaron got married (a very pretty wedding), we started Meg eating real food, and Jonathan started working full time.
One night, his mom kindly came down and watched Meg, and sent us out on a date. We went to the U of R lake and walked around. It was a gorgeous night.
One night, his mom kindly came down and watched Meg, and sent us out on a date. We went to the U of R lake and walked around. It was a gorgeous night.
Monday, June 14, 2010
In its natural habitat
I found this post about the papilio cathedra quite charming. I'm reminded of my own leopard-spotted specimen; it was a good friend, and I'm not entirely sure where it flew to. My current house may not be its best habitat. Kentucky, maybe?
Hat tip: Design.sponge.
Hat tip: Design.sponge.
I totally married the right man
Jonathan was in great form this morning. "Nihil intellectu quod non prius in sensu." He threw a sheet over his head. "Non sensu! Non sensu! NON ESSE!" The sheet slid off. "Ah. Possum esse."
Meg looked from her father, to her hilariously amused mother, and back. Eventually she decided it must be funny, so she started laughing too. This definitely qualifies as proof I married the right man. I mean, how many dads can make a funny all in Latin, amuse the baby, and mock John Locke all at the same time??
Meg looked from her father, to her hilariously amused mother, and back. Eventually she decided it must be funny, so she started laughing too. This definitely qualifies as proof I married the right man. I mean, how many dads can make a funny all in Latin, amuse the baby, and mock John Locke all at the same time??
Sunday, June 13, 2010
VBS and Star Wars
We got to decorate for VBS again! I'd thought we wouldn't get to due to scheduling conflicts, but then stuff happened, so we had a surprise free afternoon which Jonathan and I spent making giant saguaro arms (Jonathan), cactus-scapes (me, mostly - one with cottontails, one without), teepee poles (Jonathan), three lizards (me), one snake (me), a pile of taken-down and neatly rolled quilt thingies (Jonathan), and a pile of deconstructed wooden pallets for picket fencing (Jonathan). I might have gotten more done, but Meg was having internal distress; or I might not have. I really got into my cactus-scapes and bunnies.
It was great to see Jen again, and there weren't even any bomb threats this year.
Around three we started having emotional meltdowns, so away we went home to an actually pretty lousy Star Wars book, Medieval Total War 1, lovely leftovers, a book of poetry, and two episodes of Eureka just put up on Hulu. Oh, yeah.
The Star Wars book to which I refer is part of the Legacy of the Force series. I think I've read all but one of them now, and they're really not that good (as part of Star Wars - in and of themselves, the Karen Traviss ones are really well done). Jonathan and I have discussed this at some length. The old Star Wars, the ones we like, have good guys and bad guys. Some times good guys fall, and sometimes bad guys get redeemed, and of course things get complicated, but basically good guys shouldn't do dark side stuff or they'll fall and become bad guys.* And, if you're a good guy, it's good to fight the bad guys. That's what you do. And, because you're in that kind of universe, you can and must fight the bad guys without falling to the dark side. This holds true even in the more abominably written earlier Star Wars books.
And then the prequels came out. It's not just that they had awful plots, dialogue, and acting, too much CG, etc., etc., - they were telling an essentially different story. The new story didn't have any good guys, per se. Everyone was corrupt or incompetent (except maybe Amidala and the droids). You can tell a story about power and politics and big government corruption, and it might even be a good story, but it's really not the same as a good guys versus bad guys story.
I think that the newer books are more like the prequels. More competently done, but still telling that muddled type of book, where the good guys do shadier and shadier things because the evil they're fighting is so monstrous they feel they must do anything to stop it. And the evil is that bad. But now the good guys are evil too. And what's left?
I speculate that the reason they sent the Star Wars story arc this way for a couple reasons. First, they're very sensibly pandering to readers' appetites for more and weirder battles, flying around, explosions, lightsaber fights, and general action. But second, it would be very hard to write stories about creating a serious galactic peace worth protecting. It would be especially so if you actually believe the philosophy in the prequels, especially the bit about there not being any good side.
I think, according to the original trilogy, the Empire was something essentially different from the Old Republic, a wicked thing created by ambitious wicked men, and not something so quiet and similar to the old regime no one even noticed like in the prequels. I dislike the Yuuzhan Vong intensely, and I don't like what it did to the characters (especially Jacen), and I don't like the way the Legacy series just devolves into brawling political factions with a secret service and no solid goodness to cling to anywhere. Everything just spins deeper and deeper into the general muddiness.
So there!
*Zahn and some of the other authors wrote some really amazing villains, like Thrawn and Pellaeon and Daala. But no matter how much we love them, they're still the villains and the good guys pretty much have to fight them. Work with me here.
It was great to see Jen again, and there weren't even any bomb threats this year.
Around three we started having emotional meltdowns, so away we went home to an actually pretty lousy Star Wars book, Medieval Total War 1, lovely leftovers, a book of poetry, and two episodes of Eureka just put up on Hulu. Oh, yeah.
The Star Wars book to which I refer is part of the Legacy of the Force series. I think I've read all but one of them now, and they're really not that good (as part of Star Wars - in and of themselves, the Karen Traviss ones are really well done). Jonathan and I have discussed this at some length. The old Star Wars, the ones we like, have good guys and bad guys. Some times good guys fall, and sometimes bad guys get redeemed, and of course things get complicated, but basically good guys shouldn't do dark side stuff or they'll fall and become bad guys.* And, if you're a good guy, it's good to fight the bad guys. That's what you do. And, because you're in that kind of universe, you can and must fight the bad guys without falling to the dark side. This holds true even in the more abominably written earlier Star Wars books.
And then the prequels came out. It's not just that they had awful plots, dialogue, and acting, too much CG, etc., etc., - they were telling an essentially different story. The new story didn't have any good guys, per se. Everyone was corrupt or incompetent (except maybe Amidala and the droids). You can tell a story about power and politics and big government corruption, and it might even be a good story, but it's really not the same as a good guys versus bad guys story.
I think that the newer books are more like the prequels. More competently done, but still telling that muddled type of book, where the good guys do shadier and shadier things because the evil they're fighting is so monstrous they feel they must do anything to stop it. And the evil is that bad. But now the good guys are evil too. And what's left?
I speculate that the reason they sent the Star Wars story arc this way for a couple reasons. First, they're very sensibly pandering to readers' appetites for more and weirder battles, flying around, explosions, lightsaber fights, and general action. But second, it would be very hard to write stories about creating a serious galactic peace worth protecting. It would be especially so if you actually believe the philosophy in the prequels, especially the bit about there not being any good side.
I think, according to the original trilogy, the Empire was something essentially different from the Old Republic, a wicked thing created by ambitious wicked men, and not something so quiet and similar to the old regime no one even noticed like in the prequels. I dislike the Yuuzhan Vong intensely, and I don't like what it did to the characters (especially Jacen), and I don't like the way the Legacy series just devolves into brawling political factions with a secret service and no solid goodness to cling to anywhere. Everything just spins deeper and deeper into the general muddiness.
So there!
*Zahn and some of the other authors wrote some really amazing villains, like Thrawn and Pellaeon and Daala. But no matter how much we love them, they're still the villains and the good guys pretty much have to fight them. Work with me here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
