text:
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
(UPDATED!) So When Did Albert Pyun Change His Name To "Marc Webb?"
Well, on the plus side, now we no longer need to wonder what the aborted early-90s Canon Films version of "Spider-Man" would've looked like - save that, in the early 90s, this CGI would only look one or two years out of date...
I'm sure I'll have more to say about this in some other capacity soon enough, but for now let me hit the stuff jumping out at me right off the bat:
#1: I really like that one bit of Spidey fighting the cops - the Raimi movies had a paucity of hand-to-hand group fights since the villains didn't generally have henchmen and it's nice to see it here.
#2: Really kinda hoping SOME of this takes place in daylight. I know this is the darker/edgier/grittier/hardcore Spider-Man; but like I keep saying: NOT EVERY SUPERHERO NEEDS TO BE BATMAN.
#3: Dennis Leary appears well cast. I like the idea of Captain Stacy as a middle-aged working-dad type instead of the wizened elder-statesman from the comics.
#4: Well, there ya go, kids - snarky/jokey Spider-Man leaps into live-action... aaaaand in live-action it comes off as "douchey" instead of charming - like Dane Cook in a Power Rangers outfit. Who could've possibly predicted that??
#5: The dark eyepieces make him look like a villain. Sorry, they do. If I saw this version as a kid, my first assumption would be that this is an "evil" duplicate and that "good" white-eyes Spidey was going to fight him.
#6: The Lizard, as currently glimpsed here, would not pass muster in one of the "Resident Evil" movies - bad CGI rendering of a poorly-designed creature, a real shame.
#7: Well, there we have it: Peter's missing/dead biological father was a super-scientist partner of Curt Conners at (Gasp! No way! NEVER saw it coming!) OsCorp, and they were working on whatever mad-science stuff turns Peter into Spider-Man and Conners into The Lizard. Ah, "Ultimate Marvel" - the gift that keeps on giving... even though you beg it not to.
#8 Y'know what? I'm not done with #7 yet. That's awful. That's what you'd put into a pitch making fun of unnecessary, convoluted, bullshit Hollywood revisionism to origin-stories. I've tried my best to find the good in this utterly pointless cash-grab of an endeavor, but then this trailer comes along and tells me with ONE SHOT pretty-much all I need to know. At the 1:53 mark - directly following the asinine "The Untold Story" title-card - we get another black-and-white flashback of Young Peter staring at...
...A spider under glass, also black-and-white and thus implied to be either directly or indirectly part of the same flashback. In other words: It's NOT totally an accident anymore. It's - symbolically, anyway - pre-ordained: The Spider (or, at least, the manner by which it'll give him powers) and at least TWO of his major enemies (one in the film, one obviously being set-up) are all part of a path that's been awaiting him... the laziest possible screenwriting crutch: DESTINY. Instead of being a story about Great Power being thrust onto someone accidentally, Spider-Man becomes yet another ersatz-Skywalker "Chosen One."
Fuck. That.
64 comments:
Wonder how much Bob gets from Marvel each month?
- Unknown said...
Well nothing has changed my opinion about the suit, which still looks way to over designed. and the Visual effects look pretty sub par, but I'll admit this looks a lot better then what we've seen so far.
- biomechanical923 said...
I still don't understand why they're doing this.
My fiancee doesn't even like superhero movies, and even she was like why the hell are they rebooting the series?
- Adrian Izquierdo said...
In all honesty, I really want this film to be good... I would this film to be good...
But it does look like re-processed shit :/
and i'm not loving the spidey suit, it looks out of place especially when the films direction seems to be towards "the dark knight" gritty realism with a pinch of twilight emo angst...
Sony need to give up the rights back to marvel, /sigh
- Adrian Izquierdo said...
I'll let you in on a secret that will blow your freaking mind. (they are doing it for money) reboot = BIG money when it's marketed to the idiotic general public.
Spider-Man...created the Lizard? That's a little weird.
I still don't like the suit. Snoutless-Lizard reminds me of one of those Goombas from the Mario Bros movie.
Regardless, I really enjoy that Spider-Man seems to be getting his classic banter. Also, the incorporation of the web-shooters.
- Mads said...
It's licensing issues. Toby Mcquire doesn't want to make another movie in the original series, but Sony can't just sit on the license if they want to use it again.
And lets be honest, if they keep the budget low and the story interesting, the movie will make money simply by virtue of its brand, all the technical effects aside.
Which leads me to
@ Bobs post
I like the trailer just fine. It's clearly targeted as a young-adult movie; teenagers, boys, girls, highschool/college? Mix in a little bit of superhero, it'll make plenty of cash. Just like Transformers, if you select a young dude, a hot love interest, and couple it with brand people enjoy? Boom. Instant success.
It's incredibly safe. But will I watch it simply because it has spiderman in it? You betcha.
I don't think Canon ever had the budget for the kinda shots in this movie. :P
Hate on this film for all the stupid, bullshit, superficial reasons you like Bob, it won't change the irrefutable FACT that in that ONE scene with the car thief, this movie was more faithful to the character of Spiderman than anything Toby did in the first three films.
- Teej Turtle said...
I agree with the destiny thing. That always bugs me.
That being said this trailer made me lose most of my doubt.
Spidey makes jokes. Peter is smart (something the Raimi films never showcased too much). Practical effects looks better than all CG.
Maybe if you were a kid who attends college and you had just become a Superhero your first en devours might be during the night (then hopefully it shows how it conflicts with his personal life and college later in the film or in sequels. Can't cram it all in at once.). I also hope there are more scenes during the day. Still not keen on the suit but I can get past that like we all have with every Batman film (except B&R because THAT'S when we notice the nipples and not in Forever ¬_¬).
Every film has its flaws but there have been worst CBMs and so far this doesn't fall in that category.
Sorry for the essay lol.
- JD said...
1) You can see Spidey swinging in the daylight around 2:12 in the trailer.
2) I didn't think quipping Spidey seemed too douchey to me.
3)Yeah I admit I don't like the dark eyepieces either.
4) Personally I liked the Ultimate origin and I'm fine with the rejiggering the origin here because... well we already got the definitive origin with Raimi. One thing Nolan could do with Batman is go back and draw from the comics in a way that Burton never bothered with. Webb can't do that here because Raimi beat him to the punch. So this is a way to clearly mark that this is a new interpretation.
Will it be good? I dunno. But I'm willing to give it a shot.
No no no no no no no. If there was ONE superhero who was meant to go for the "Iron Man" as opposed to "Batman" angle, it was Spider-Man. Peter Parker is basically Tony Stark in high school.
- Lord Slithor said...
Sorry, Bob. I REALLY have to disagree with you on this one. Everything I saw in that trailer, I liked. It's everything I wanted in a Spider-Man movie that I didn't get in Sam Raimi's mope-fests. I was especially happy to finally see Spidey quipping and wisecracking like he's supposed to. Didn't strike me as douchey at all. It was pitch perfect. And the destiny thing didn't bother me at all, especially when the Raimi movies were equally or not more pretentious. I'll take this over the Raimi movies ANY day!
Oh, and Dennis Leary as Capt. Stacy? That was a revelation. I have a feeling he's going to steal every scene he's in like J.K. Simmons did when he played JJJ.
- Dave from canada said...
@ Lord Slithor
You aren't alone.
In fact as a whole the internet has been abuzz over this trailer and the sizzle reel. The movie is getting some really positive reactions.
IGN even suggested it could be bigger than the avengers.
Bob on the other hand has been bitching about this movie for what, 2 years now? So naturally he hates it and is going to continue acting like the movie is absolute garbage even if it turns out to be awesome, as is becoming a frightening possibility.
- Axl said...
I liked two parts of this trailer.
That scene with the car thief in the car. I didn't think it was that douchey.
And that brief moment between the "Oh man the Lizard" feeling and the reveal of how bad it looks.
Okay Bob, I've been on your side for the most part when it has come to this movie, because there are things that really piss me off about it. I don't like they seem to be going through the Ultimate universe in regards to some of the things regarding Connors and Parker's dad. I'm not the biggest fan of the darker eye-pieces for Spider-Man's costume. I really dislike the redesign for the Lizard from what I've seen, namely because I'm a huge fan of the character.
That being said, this looks a lot better than the teaser, which is saying a lot, because the teaser looked fucking WRETCHED. The wise-cracking didn't come off as douche-like to me, and I really didn't get the same 'destiny' vibe you were picking up on. I still think the spider bite will turn out to be an accident, and the more I see it, the more I think Andrew Garfield will be a far better Spider-Man than Tobey McGuire ever was.
And yeah, while the CGI isn't fantastic, this could still be a decent movie. I don't have any high hopes for it, but it could be a lot of fun.
- Ezenwa Anyanwu said...
And in the awesome trailer race, Avengers - 3, DKR - 2, and now Spider Man, which was given a -1 in certain instances, has bumped himself to a 1.
It seems like this movie will take the X-men: First Class route and keep it low on the expectations list, only to blow everyone's minds when the film comes, which is a good idea, in my book.
That said, it's going to be an interesting summer to say the least.
Long story short, good trailer. And yes, he's funny. That's how Spidey should be: funny! I don't see the "Dane Cook" aspect. Maybe it's his hair....
Let the trailer race continue.
Oh, btw, as for Spidey creating the Lizard, how do you know it's not just him working on the serum while not really knowing about it? It could be figurative.
Although, I will say this: if Spidey ends up revealing himself to Gwen this early in the game, I will be very, VERY, disappointed.
And, finished. Enjoy!
- Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...
I'm still on the fence about this one, but I'm leaning toward the negative. Yeah, this trailer was better than the previous one, but I still have reservations about it.
I'm not crazy about the whole "destiny" angle, either. I hated it when JMS tried to put it in the comics with his totemic origin, and I hate it here.
However, I did like the quipping in the car with the thief: the character's sense of humor was sorely missing from the Raimi films, and it's nice to see it here.
I do agree that I'm not crazy with all the major scenes being shown in this trailer being in the dark/at night. Maybe they'll tie it in to the fact that since he isn't established yet, it's safer for him to go out at night since the cops clearly don't like him. Or, like you said, Bob, they could just be trying to ape Batman, which isn't cool.
Which leads me to the costume: it's entirely too dark, especially considering the large number of overly dark scenes (based on this trailer). I could easily see fight scenes getting muddy and confusing because everything blends together.
Mechanical web shooters are always good: I don't hate the bio-shooters of the Raimi films. It's just nice to see the mechanical ones in here, even if they do flash annoyingly whenever they shoot webbing. Seriously, watch his wrists when he shoots it: they flash every time. Annoying.
I can't complain too much about the casting: I like Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy, Emma Stone as Gwen and Andrew Garfield seems to work as Spider-Man.
I especially like that Garfield's Spidey is a little on the skinnier/thinner side, like the original Ditko Spidey was. When Spider-Man started looking like a bodybuilder, something didn't feel right.
How pissed do you bet Raimi is that the new guy gets to use the Lizard, a classic Spidey-villain, while he was forced to cram Venom in to his last movie? Don't get me wrong: I like the Eddie Brock Venom (from the comics: Topher Grace was awful), but Raimi said many a time that he hated the modern Spidey-villains, and then he gets forced to cram one in to his final Spidey flick. Tough luck.
I don't often comment on CGI unless it's really, really bad, like the bathroom scene in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I didn't see anything too objectionable here. The movie's still a ways off, so maybe they haven't finished all the effects yet? I'm not an industry guy, so I don't know when they do all these things.
However, I will agree that, based off some of the concept work I've seen, the Lizard looks awful. Kinda like a scaly pug. Look at Ditko for a good Lizard: Hell, you can even look at a McFarlane Lizard to get a better showing than this (and I don't give praise to McFarlane...ever).
Overall, I'm hoping for a good movie but expecting a bad one.
A Spider-Man movie without Bonesaw is not a movie I care about.
- Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...
One other thing. I don't like how the movies give Pete this "one true love" thing.
Yeah, we all know that he belongs with Mary Jane in the comics, but we got to that point because he went out with a lot of women (Betty Brant, Felicia Hardy, Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane, etc.), not because they clumsily said, "Oh yeah, he's totally in love with this girl."
The Raimi movies fell into this trap, and it looks like this one (these?) will, too.
I mean, he only met Mary Jane in the comics after avoiding her for a while because Aunt May was trying to hook them up.
But I digress.
It doesn't look that bad!!
I can understand tradition and sticking to story, and I remember Raimi getting stick for his alterations and interpretation of the Spiderman legacy, but don't you want to watch a kick-ass summer movie? And that is exactly what this looks like! Fair play, I am really looking forward to this now! It looks very modern and relevant; this movie is going to surprise people!
I'll read the rest of these comments after class because that's important, but I totally agree with JD. I don't think the "destiny" thing is too bad, and we already HAVE the original-origin-story from Raimi's films. I kind of like how what we've seen suggests that JJJ doesn't play a big (if any) role in this franchise yet...but I stand by my notion made when this was announced: Toby played a good Parker, but J.K. Simmons was the best JJJ ever and if any cast member could reprise a role in this universe I'd pick him for sure!
I don't think the "destiny" thing's a destiny laid out by a deity; it's one laid out by Mr. Parker. If he meant for his son to gain the powers he's made then I understand that and him wanting that. Peter Parker still has to deal with them!
I was unsure and even partly-agreeing with Bob, but now that I've seen this trailer I'm loving it! And the part where he's unmasked by the cops and then goes apeshit was never-before-seen-cool!
Simmons was excellent in the series and role of JJJ, but I always thought that Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) would have been perfect!!!
Not understanding Bob's bile for this film, to be honest. I'm just an average film viewer, not a critic, but I liked what I saw fairly well. I agree that leaning too heavily on a "destined hero" trope would be going overboard, but it looked to me like more of the minor cheese of "my dad knew this guy and together THEY CHANGED THE WORLD" stuff that appeared in Iron Man 2 with Howard Stark's convenient "Tony, you shall complete my mighty work"...it's a chintzy bit of plotting because for a modern audience it looks too convenient, but on the other hand it didn't seem like a big problem for Bob there.
I also didn't get the Dane Cook vibe off of the wisecracking scene at all. Maybe the timing could've been better, but Spider-man cracks wise. If you want to differentiate yourself from Raimi's Spider-Mope, this seems like a decent way to go as far as I'm concerned.
Granted, the trailer wasn't phenomenal, and I don't think the film will be making superhero flick history...but I just don't understand the vitriol. Bob obviously did his best to sound balanced, but let's face it, this was a rant. I...don't get it. Why this film? It looks a bit cheesy, sure, but in all fairness so does The Avengers....
- Dave from canada said...
@ Sam
It stems back to when Raimi was going to do a spiderman 4 where felicia hardy would become the vulture for some reason. It fell through. Sony wanted the new film out for 2011, Raimi couldn't cobble together a script in time, so he left and they announced a reboot.
Because Raimi is apparently the second coming of jesus and if you don't love him you deserve hellfire in bob's mind, this makes all future spiderman properties inherently evil.
Also, as he keeps mentioning, this means spiderman can't be in the avengers...even though spiderman was never a part of the classic avengers lineup until the utterly terrible new avengers that also included wolverine because marvel doesn't know how to sell comics without either of those characters anymore.
Pretty much every single point he made in this review is a repetition of a previous post he made about why the movie would be terrible sight unseen.
- David said...
OK, what am I missing here?
I don't see where do you take the "Destiny" angle though?
How the hell you go from "My father was a scientist with an evil corp" to "I was destined to become a human spider all along"?
I don't get it!
Are you sure you're not seeing things?
And about the snarkiness, yeah, it comes across a little bit douchy... but not because it's live action! Seriously, that's a very cheap argument.
It feels more like poorly written lines ("If you're gonna steal a car, dress like a car thief"? Really?) and Garfield's over the top, bro-like body language.
And yeah, the lizard looks pretty bland, at least in this trailer. Let's hope it improves before the release.
Still, I don't think it looks that bad. We'll have to wait and see.
Bob doesn't like the looks of something related to the Spider-Man reboot.
And in other shocking news, the sun rose today.
- Steven said...
Bob wants the Avengers to be the most successful comic book film of this year and so has been slagging off every rival nonstop.
Now that, what was once the least threatening rival has just boosted it's credentials he is PISSED because he now no's that the Avengers will probably be the least successful comic based film of the year.
- MovieBob said...
Ah, The Internet; where "someone's opinion is different from mine" can ONLY possibly be explained by elaborate ulterior motives.
There are days when I wish I'd gone with something more specific for the new masthead...
"MOVIEBOB: Come For The Second-Rate Film Blogging; STAY For The Dime-Store Psychoanalysis From The Peanut Gallery."
- biomechanical923 said...
I understand they're doing it for money. That's a no-brainer. I also understand that a Spiderman IP on a less-than-AAA budget is bound to profit. But honestly I haven't seen a ton of hype or excitement around this movie from anybody.
Studios going for easy money and safe money is sadly no surprise.
Studios going for small money, however, kind of reeks of a little bit of desperation.
- Dave from canada said...
@ Bob
And right on cue we have the passiev aggressive reply as though you don't know exactly what we are talking about and as though you haven't been called on it a couple dozen times before.
As I said the last few times you pulled this poor me schtick: if you don't want people to criticize your comments, don't post them.
I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you simply don't know the reception to the new trailer has been very positive, with many a commenter talking about how it turned them around on the movie.
You know what the reaction to this has been, you know it isn't what you wanted.
I find it funny that of all the topics that people disagree with you on, including the multitude of political statements, THIS is the one topic to get such a snippy reaction from you.
- ScrewAttackSamus said...
looks pretty lame. Now I understand why Raimi actually downplayed Spidey's snark in his movies: because it would make Peter come off as a twat instead of humorous. (Also, I wish people would stop thinking that ripping off Whedon's writing style is somehow the end-all be-all of writing good dialogue.) And it's going to be doubly jarring considering this movie thinks that it's capable of copying Chris Nolan.
- Steven said...
@ MovieBob
Really a comment like that from a guy who came across as nearly orgasming at the trailor for God Bless America a film basically about killing all those who like something you don't?
"Ah, The Internet; where "someone's opinion is different from mine" can ONLY possibly be explained by elaborate ulterior motives."
Except it's not elaborate. It barely qualifies as ulterior. You've done everything short of admitting your hate for this movie has nothing to do with the movie itself. Oh wait, my bad. You did that too. So no Bob, this isn't "Dime-Store Psychoanalysis", this is you being called out on bullshit you didn't even bother hiding. Deal with it.
- biomechanical923 said...
He must really believe in what he's saying to post without an identity.
Wow, after that snap, you just lost what little amount of respect I had left for you. Bye now.
- Unknown said...
Two things I've taken from this blog post.
1) Mr. Anon(#1), I don't think Bob gets anything from Marvel.
2) I actually like the suit. It reminds me of the Scarlet Spider. His second costume, when he took over for Spider-man for awhile and ditched the sleeveless hoodie. I also like Denis Leary and it's nice to see he acts like he could actually be Capt. Stacey. That said, thus far, these are the only two things I like about this movie so far.
- Jonny Pratt said...
I'm not sure if it's the trailer miss-representing the film or not, but there really is a lot of batman-ism going on here. It's nothing to do with "darkness" or "grittiness", both of which are missing other than a literal lack of light (while I'm on the subject, it looks like the trailer can't decide if it's "gritty" or "cool" or "camp" or anything - no persistant theme may make for a rather messy presentation)
No, nothing to do with that:
"I think he's maybe trying to do something the police can't"
The trailer says to me, "destiny-driven superhero becomes masked vigilante and angers police force in doing so". There are other "reveals" such as the love interest and hints of the supervilain, but the main focus is the above.
The Nolan Batman movies haven't privatised that theme, but the fact of the matter is this is ground that's already been covered, and that's certainly a turn-off for me.
I have no frame of reference having never read the comics, so perhaps this is a theme that works for the character - I don't know. But as a film, the similarity between Bat-Nolan and Spider-Boot could be taken as a lack of imagination, and I have no interest in seeing a film about a lycra-clad spider-person battling a human lizard which lacks imagination.
Maybe that's just the trailer though. In which case, that's some bloody terrible advertising.
(PS. Can we start some sort of initiative so that everybody can refer to "Nolan's Batman" as just "Batman"? It been long enough.)
While I don't know how this movie will turn out, and I'm not sure whether or not I like the look of it, I mean it could be great, or it could be utter shit, I'm not going to make any pre-conceived notions about it, that way when I do see it, I can judge it fairly.
Bob, I know it's kind of your job, but maybe you shouldn't watch any more media for this movie until you see it, because right now it does seem like you just want to hate it. Don't make any pre-conceived notions, and give it a chance. I don't want to be watching the review on Escape to the Movies for this and you hating it because you went in thinking "This is going to suck" and finding things in the film that will match that opinion, rather than judging it fairly. You might still end up hating it sure, and that's fine, but you never know, it could surprise you.
- Scott C. said...
Bob, I really think you're very insightful about a lot of things movie/video game related and you make a lot of valid points when it comes to over-hyped and/or under-appreciated IPs, but I'm really not sure why you're making such a big deal out of this (while making comments about how angry you AREN'T about the Phantom Menace re-release). It seems that from the get go you've had it out for this movie. I know you've thrown in the occasional, "I'm trying to like this movie," but I feel like that's just a front so you can hopefully appease some of your fans who want to support you and this movie at the same time.
The Sam Raimi movies were always lackluster. Spider-Man 2 was the closest thing we got to a recognizable adaptation of the comic books/1994 cartoon show (my favorite adaptation to date), and even that ended horribly, not to mention having a very erratic story that felt as if it were going nowhere.
Spider-Man 3 had some of the worst dialogue and special effects for a superhero movie, and we're talking about a movie that would have felt campy if it had been doing its job properly. I'm not mad at emo Peter. I'm not mad about squandering the fantastic potential of Sandman by including 2 other throw away villains. I'm not even mad about Topher Grace's horrendous portrayal of Eddie Brock. No, the only thing I'm mad about at this point is that you are defending a mediocre trilogy of movies with cheap laughs, poor directing, forgettable characters, painful acting, confusing plots, and cheesy special effects, while claiming the reboot is doing all the same things.
I kinda like this new direction. It hasn't even been 10 years since the first Raimi movie and I'm glad to see it mixed up a bit.
Why would you want to watch the same stuff we've watched not too long ago?
I'm glad spider-man quips a bit in this movie, I feared it was going to be too gloomy.
Also.. the eyes? really?
- Unknown said...
I have to agree with you, Bob. This trailer just couldn't grab me. From the opening "intimidating doorman" line to the final falling-thing-3D-Money-shot (which, really, was a lame way to end the trailer..."A thing is falling on top of a building without context! Exciting! Not so much...), it just felt bland to me.
Regarding your bullet-points:
1) The cop bit is pretty cool, and I think the action, at least, looks pretty well choreographed.
2) I'm pretty sure that the dark is to 1: ape batman, and 2: cover up some of the shittier effects work. I'd like to see some daylight stuff, but I'm pretty sure most daylight is going to be school stuff and pre-transformation.
3) Dennis Leary fits the bill perfectly (though I do keep expecting him to go off on a random tangent a la Demolition Man). Totally agreed there. However, another quick note regarding the casting: from the beginning, when I heard that Emma Stone was playing Gwen, I just couldn't get on-board with it. And as I watch her now, my feelings are confirmed. She just seems off in this role.
4) The joke falls flat to me. It doesn't really come off as Snarky so much as "trying to be cool". The delivery lacks confidence. I do disagree, though, that the problem with the dialogue is that it's in live-action. It's just bad writing and bad delivery.
5) The whole costume looks like ass. I really can't get over the eye-pieces and the crotch-arrow design. It really looks like they brought in some pretentious art student and asked them to design a spider-man suit.
6) The lizard does look awful. Really, he looks like a really poorly designed hulk villain. The lack of anything "lizard-y" about him other than his eyes and his tail doesn't help the matter. Bad move there.
7)Now, here's where we conflict a bit. While I don't like the idea of adding in the "destiny" aspect, I don't mind the fact that his dad used to work with Connors at OsCorp. I think that could have worked, allowing a doorway for Connors and Peter to bond. The fact that his father is going to end up being the ones that make the super-spider formula? That definitely goes against the whole point of Spider-Man. And the spider-in-a-jar bit does feel like kind of a slap in the face.
And I don't mind a lot of Ultimate Spider-Man. I thought their version of Venom (a cure for cancer gone wrong), in fact, was actually pretty intuitive. And don't forget that it was Ultimate Marvel who had the balls to kill off Peter Parker and replace him with a new Spider-Man.
- DBones said...
You know, after all the hubbub about making Spider-Man funny, this trailer seemed incredibly serious and lacking in "fun."
Raimi's movies may not have had the wisecracks during the fight scenes, but they were still very fun. This just looks super serious super action movie, and the wisecracks seem out of place.
- Uncle Tim said...
I'm still not exactly sure where you're getting this whole "chosen one"/"destiny" angle. Ok, so let's look at it:
-His father now worked for Oscorp, apparently in experiments that involved a spider.
-Peter discovers a clue about this and goes to Oscorp to discover more details about it.
-From the earlier teaser, I'm getting the sense that the spider-bite thing is still an accident, possibly when Peter is examining some of his father's experiments at Oscorp.
That doesn't exactly spell out that Peter's father meant for him to become a super-powered arachnid do-gooder or that he was destined to become it. It simply means that because his father was working on this, Peter put himself into a situation where an accident could occur since there are greater odds of super-powered spiders being around at Oscorp, rather than the randomness of a spider dropping into a radioactive experiment. It's not a question of predestination, just higher probabilities.
However, if you insist on seeing the dreaded theme of 'destiny' in your Spider-man cinematic experiences, here ya go:
On other points, I like having Captain Stacy involved as it gives Peter a human antagonist who has much more ability that Jameson to mess up his life.
So far I like that in the web-swinging shots the virtual camerawork is way less ridiculous than it was in the Raimi series.
Connectin Peter's father with Oscorp and making him a science makes it natural to have Peter be a whiz-kid and the connection to his father's work may also make his invention of the web fluid a bit more plausible.
My once concern is that I hope they don't make Curt Connors villainous even in his human form. Connors is best as a true Jekyll & Hyde villain who can't control his other reptilian half.
And is that a Spider-tracer I see in there?
- MovieBob said...
@Uncle Tim,
I'll concede that a lot of my worry hear comes from "reading" the way the various scenes are arranged in the trailer and what story they're meant to tell; but from where I sit it's pretty damn close the "pre-ordained hero" schtick, just with coincidence subbing for "The Force" or whatnot.
His (missing/dead) father was not only working with The Lizard on the stuff that will turn him INTO The Lizard; but it ALSO seems to be what turns him into Spider-Man AND they did all this while under the employment of the guy who will become The Green Goblin (Gee. I. Wonder. Who. Dissapeared. The Parkers.)
That this is more of the same streamlining/compression crap that's almost always a clear giveaway that the filmmakers don't really "get" the genre (see: Joker kills Batman's parents) the implication - at least in terms of the "trailer's narrative" - that he's able to step into his dad's shoes and solve Conners' incomplete formula gives off a strong "these events were already in motion" vibe, whether this is "inherited genius" or he got the answer from Dad's Magical Backstory Bag.
And even WITHOUT all that, the decorative spider in the flashback is a giant red flag in and of itself - ESPECIALLY if it actually is part of Richard Parker's effects (and that's definitely the implication of the trailer-editing.) I swear, if he has some speech relating to it about positive attributes of spiders as metaphor for positive behaviors in people, I will not be held responsible for my actions at the theater.
I dunno. The whole bit of Peter's dad being a scientist and being involved with the webbing was one of the things I actually dug about the Ultimate books. It's a nice update and doesn't dig into the whole spy thing, but still keeps something similar. Plus mixing it into Oscorp makes sense too since SHIELD ain't showing up in Sony films.
My only gripe would be that Connors might be less sympathetic and more of a villain before becoming Lizard. Also a bad feelings they might lead to Ultimate Goblin instead of a traditional Goblin which we didn't quite get with that metal suit.
I think after the third Rami film, we needed a fresh start. Plus we finally have a proper Gwen Stacy!!! Too bad it wasn't Marvel proper doing it, but this might work.
Oh and it could be worse. At least they're not saying some Spider-god was manipulating Peter into becoming Spider-man... or doing that but with song and dance with spider women shopping for shoes.
I'm looking at you, J. Michael Straczynski and Julie Taymor.
So, really, having some stuff already set in motion ain't bad to me. I don't really get a whole "destiny" vibe just yet. Just that there's a back story of shady experiments at Oscorp. And I see that making a ton of sense.
- Uncle Tim said...
"I'll concede that a lot of my worry hear comes from "reading" the way the various scenes are arranged in the trailer and what story they're meant to tell; but from where I sit it's pretty damn close the "pre-ordained hero" schtick, just with coincidence subbing for "The Force" or whatnot.
His (missing/dead) father was not only working with The Lizard on the stuff that will turn him INTO The Lizard; but it ALSO seems to be what turns him into Spider-Man AND they did all this while under the employment of the guy who will become The Green Goblin (Gee. I. Wonder. Who. Dissapeared. The Parkers.)"
You seem to be missing my point slightly. My point is that because Peter's father is involved in this serum/experiment/whatever, it's LESS of a coincidence. It's what instead a circumstance of cause and effect. Peter discovers his father's work, becomes interested and involved in it and the accident happens as a result. It only seems pre-ordained because we know he's going to turn into Spider-man. Instead, it's a matter of character choice since Peter decided to work on the formula. Plus, if he feels responsible for what happened to Connors, does that not play into the "great power/great responsibility" theme?
And this doesn't really compare to the Batman "Joker killed his parents thing." That seems plot convenient. This is more in the matter of plot efficiency. We've got a guy with spider-derived attributes and a guy with lizard-derived attributes. Does it not make dramatic sense to connect them? Otherwise I think it would seem much more coincidental that everyone in New York seems to have some kind of animal genetics issues going on. And even if Osborne is involved in their disappearance, since his powers came from a similar experiment, wouldn't that tie in and again be less a matter of coincidence than consequence?
I also think it'd be funny if we see that Oscorp was working on other animal experiments along these lines, say ones involving rhino and cat abilities?
I'd also say it's a bit condescending and foolish to say that because they're changing it a bit that they don't "get" the genre. That's about as presumptuous as someone assigning ulterior motives to explain another's opinion *wink wink*.
As for things already being in motion, how is that any different from Batman Begins, where we see that things were already in motion there (the League of Shadows trying to destroy Gotham economically, Thomas Wayne fighting back, etc.)? Same result: because of past events and accidents along the way (one encounters bats, one encounters a spider), the sons choose to pursue a life of crime-fighting. No coincidence or need of destiny at all... personal choice, the key theme of Spider-man.
- Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...
Bob, after viewing the ongoing conversation, I do have to respond to this quote, "That this is more of the same streamlining/compression crap that's almost always a clear giveaway that the filmmakers don't really "get" the genre (see: Joker kills Batman's parents)..."
I feel obligated to remind you that Raimi had the F-ING SANDMAN KILL UNCLE BEN in Spider-Man 3.
If that doesn't wreak of filmmakers not "getting" the genre, then I don't know what does.
Oh, and the whole, "But the guy Peter could have stopped bumped into Sandman, making the gun go off" is the worst (not to mention weakest) line of defense for that horrifically awful plot thread.
I'm not saying you made that rationale, but some people have.
Just thought I'd just put in my two cents!
- Chris Cesarano said...
I'm not going to argue whether Bob is biased or not (he is, but technically so is everyone who dislikes the Raimi versions). However, I got to watch the trailer last night, and I got mixed feelings.
Those eyes for the costume don't work. I have no problem with the rest of it, but those eyes look terrible.
I definitely like Denis Leary as Captain Stacy. Too early to tell if any of the other actors are cast well.
Andrew Garfield feels like he's doing a good job with the role he's been given, but my thoughts on the whole are that this doesn't feel like THE Spider-Man movie. Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, they all felt like their respective property. Maybe it helps that I'm not so familiar with any of those films as I am with Spider-Man, but in that sense, X-Men: First Class felt like X-Men still.
This feels like someone took a bunch of Spider-Man-esque elements and clung them together into a movie. Something about the tone is just off, though. While I appreciate Peter Parker having balls in this version, his snark is off. It doesn't sound like the Peter Parker I know (albeit from the Fox cartoons and from the Ultimate universe).
I think what really hit it for me was watching that tower topple in the trailer. It feels like they're trying to set themselves apart from Raimi's version, but at the same time, they may be shifting a bit too far from the actual spirit of the creation.
That said, I might go see it. Not completely certain yet. This could be a case like Rise of the Planet of the Apes, where the first trailer was terrible, the second trailer was intriguing, and it turned out to be one of my favorite films of last year.
I don't think the general audience will be a fan, though. I still remember the first time I sat in a theater when the first trailer appeared, and from all over the peanut gallery I heard "They're making another one?" "Why are they starting it over?" "Isn't it too soon?"
In other words, casual movie goers that hadn't already heard of this had pretty much the same reaction as a bunch of nerds. So I expect this to be a flop, with the only people really interested being the nerds, and half of those are going to make fun of it after already having their minds made up.
So anyone saying this has a chance of doing better than The Avengers, I'm sorry, but that's just laughable. At the very least, everyone will see the movie just for more Iron Man and Captain America, seeing how those films were loved by movie going audiences. Even if they go to see it as "Iron Man and those other dudes", they're going to see it.
Avengers will probably be the biggest Blockbuster this year, Battleship will probably flop, and The Dark Knight Returns will be a decent second place to Avengers in regards to geeky films (I don't know enough about the industry to predict all-around performances).
Spider-Man is the only one I'm not sure about performance. It might be a total flop, and easily risks it. It might have a bad opening weekend and then word of mouth gives it a strong second and third. Who knows? It really is too early to tell.
Either way, I think I'll enjoy it more if I view it as A Spider-Man movie, rather than THE Spider-Man movie.
- MovieBob said...
@Uncle Tim,
"I also think it'd be funny if we see that Oscorp was working on other animal experiments along these lines, say ones involving rhino and cat abilities?"
Ugh. "OsCorp: Your One-Stop Shop For Lazy Supervillain Origins." Don't give them any ideas. One of the things the Raimi movies got most right was to establish right off the bat that this sort of thing isn't wholly uncommon in this world, which gives it so much more expanse and scope - there's a terrarium full of super-spiders in a museum on one side of town, there's a guy with gliders and goblin-gas on the other side, and there's ZERO need to tie them together because it's a big world and "these things happen here."
Reworking the whole setup from "Spider-Man: Protector of New York" to "Spider-Man: Guy With a Personal Vendetta Against This ONE Villain-Generating Company" would be A.) a terrible idea and B.) something I'd wholly expect out of this new (maybe) series.
- Uncle Tim said...
"One of the things the Raimi movies got most right was to establish right off the bat that this sort of thing isn't wholly uncommon in this world, which gives it so much more expanse and scope - there's a terrarium full of super-spiders in a museum on one side of town, there's a guy with gliders and goblin-gas on the other side, and there's ZERO need to tie them together because it's a big world and "these things happen here."
But that's not entirely true until the third Raimi film considering Otto Octavius was also funded and supplied by Oscorp. Despite this, they managed to avoid being portrayed as an "evil corporation" in those movies. All we have so far in this new one is (probably) a scientist whose experiment goes out of control and (probably) the company founder going insane due to similar circumstances. That doesn't mean we can expect the Umbrella Corp. And that "big world" thing worked find in the other films but it doesn't mean it's the only way to go. I don't think tying things together in a logical way is necessarily a dramatic evil.
Besides, this type of set-up would be great to provide origins for villains like the Rhino would probably couldn't support a full story on their own but would make good henchmen.
- Chris Cesarano said...
Was The Rhino ever a truly fleshed out villain? I don't even really remember him being made use of in the Fox cartoon. He seems like a pretty generic villain to me, and not the sort you'd really build a movie off of or use as a henchman.
The best villains in comics tend to be the ones whose psychology you can understand. The ones that you can comprehend the reasoning behind their actions. Rhino always came off to me as a generic asshole "I got power so you get crushed".
I think that's one of the things Raimi really did right, at least in terms of goals. He wanted the villains to be more than generic bad guys. He wanted them to actually be characters.
Except for Venom, who he COULD have done something good with, but screwed it up due to a stubborn attitude.
Either way, there's certainly more sorts of villains in the world than just mutations for Spider-Man to combat against.
- Uncle Tim said...
@Chris Cesarano
That's exactly why I think this approach would work for villains like that. If say you had a villain like Green Goblin or better yet, a more cerebral villain like Mysterio or the Chameleon, but needed another element to give the film more action; the Rhino and villains like him could serve as muscle, providing some thrilling action scenes and an opponent for Spider-man to fight against physically while the main villain offers the more interesting psychological depth and dramatic value.
I do agree there are plenty of other villains, such as Kraven or those previously mentioned, that could be made use of that wouldn't involve Oscorp and wouldn't be surprised if we see that. Hell, I had hoped the abandoned Spider-man 4 would have been Kraven and Lizard, as in Spider-man has to simultaneously stop Connors while protecting him from Kraven, who's out to bag him as a trophy.
By the way, regarding your previous post, I'm curious if you consider any of the Raimi Spider-man films as being THE Spider-man film as you mentioned, or if you feel no one has reached that level yet.
- BJCHESTER said...
I agree that making Peter's powers a result of destiny undermines his whole struggle to choose to be a hero. What's more, I dislike how so may fans claim this to be closer to the comics, because of "oh my God mechanical web-shoters," and ignore the fact that Marc Webb is projecting personality traits that are antithetical to Peter Parker onto him. Claiming Peter is more "punk," and turning him from a shy science-lover, to a wannabe Eric Harris, skater-rat. I had problems with the Raimi movies, and even complained about them before it was popular to do so, but everything I've seen of this makes me less and less interested.
- Chris Cesarano said...
@Uncle Tim:
That reaches the potential to having too many villains in one film. Handled well, it can work, but one really needs to be the primary focus. I was all on board with The Dark Knight's execution of Two-Face, expecting him to have been set up for a cliffhanger villain into the next movie.
Then they made him way too dark, way too fast, and killed him off. It felt cheap, as if they only had Two-Face for the sake of having Two-Face. It devalued most of his character's actions as Harvey Dent, and they tacked on some bull crap about "The hero this city deserves, but not what it needs" (I swear, that ending monologue STILL makes me scratch my head).
Unless the comic is about ensemble casts where the characters are based more on gimmicks than personalities, such as the X-Men universe (well, superficially: everyone gets a chance to be fleshed out in years-long-running comics after all), then having more than one villain is just a bad idea.
Plus, even in a universe where a man is turning into a reptile, I just...I can't get behind The Rhino. He's not even the Bane of Spider-Man villains. I'd go so far as to compare him to Aqua Man.
As for Raimi's films, I think the first two were what super hero films needed at the time. You saw the trailer, and you're like "Holy crap! It LOOKS like a Spider-man movie should look!" And they got the whole relationship between Peter Parker and Uncle Ben right. That whole "great power great responsibility" theme was pitch perfectly executed (until the third film which fucked it all up).
But upon repeat viewings, the first and second movies don't hold up. It's hard to like Peter Parker because he keeps doing and saying stupid things. It's easy to like Spider-man, sure! But Pete's personal life is full of him doing stupid stuff. Yeah, Pete in the comics was a geek, but he wasn't a pussy, so to speak.
Raimi's execution of Mary Jane is also beyond bland. MJ from the comics never came off to me as "Oh look, it's that pretty popular girl that Pete has a thing for!" She was different by having a fiery personality. Raimi basically recycled the old "Geek loves popular girl, out-of-the-ordinary circumstance gets him the girl". Like Transformers. The plot line is old hat and played out, especially after having grown up a geek and resenting the popular girl. If I became a super hero as a teenager and dared to reveal my abilities and identity, I'd have been all "Look at me NOW, bitch!"
Not that such an attitude is admirable, but seriously.
In a lot of ways, though, I get sick of Raimi's B-movie sense of cheese. The man loves the woman with the shrill scream way too much. The inappropriate close-ups just asking for someone to say "groovy". The over-the-top nature of some of the set pieces. The guy indulges in himself, pretty much, shoving a little bit of Evil Dead into Spider-man just because he can. It is tonally inappropriate, and the only way you'll enjoy it is if you happen to be absolutely in love with that old fashioned 70's scream queen grindhouse movie culture.
I feel like, between the Raimi films and this new one, there's a really good Spider-Man film out there. But both of them missed the bullseye and instead got the outer-edges of the target (as opposed to X-Men or Fantastic Four, which missed the target completely).
- Popcorn Dave said...
I agree with Bob on the destiny/unified origins thing, and I prefer the classic story. Obviously they were just trying to avoid it because Raimi did the classic origin story already, but I don't get the obsession with origin stories anyway.
Superhero sequels nearly always turn out better than the originals, so why not just start the film with the character already super?
Oh, that's right, they're rebooting because they ALSO want to use Doc Ock, Green Goblin and Venom again and they have to make sure the dumbass audience realises it's not a sequel to the Raimi films.
Lame. It really isn't a bad trailer apart from that, though. I agree that the Lizard looks rubbish, and I hope some of the film takes place in daylight, but Spider-Man himself looks pretty damn good.
This film won't light the world on fire like the Dark Knight or even like the original Raimi films did, but I think it's got a shot at being a decent Spider-Man movie.
I find it funny that you keep praising the Marvel movies for embracing comic book style writing (crossovers, shared universes etc.) but surely one of the main characteristics of comic books is the revolving door of writers and artists that keep tweaking continuity, retconning this or that, and putting their own spin on the established characters. Seems like this kind of "reinvention" is exactly the kind of thing comic books like to do, and between this movie, Superman, Hulk, and Batman, it's fast becoming standard practice for superhero movies. Be careful what you wish for, Bob.
He didn't come off as that douchey to me, from that one exchange it seems like Garfield might be able to pull it off, he might not. Not entirely convinced either way.
At least we can all agree that George Stacy is a step up from Cromwell :V
in any case
/goes to sit in the corner for liking Ult. Marvel
- CraftyAndy said...
I don't need to add another paragraph to this comment section. I'll just second your last statement.
Fuck That!
- Linda said...
That was really nice :) Free Computer Games ~ Freeware Softwares
- DOWNLOAD FULL VERSION OF ACTION PC GAMES HERE said...
- DOWNLOAD COMPUTER SOFTWARES WITH SERIAL KEYS HERE said...
It has been brought to my attention that article purporting to be about me exists on your site. Beyond the fact that it has erroneous and libelous information that is unverified and slanted by those who have hijacked the page. The page is controlled by those from Guam or live in Guam in an attempt to smear me because they are trying to discredit my upcoming testimony on Guam that will lead to criminal charges of these individuals . I will be asking my attorney to look into your site to seek damages incurring to my reputation by the posting of libel and slander.
best, Albert Pyun firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
NY man pleads guilty to unlawful sexual touching of child while visiting Maine
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) � A New York man has pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful sexual contact with a 2-year-old girl Maine girl just as his trial was scheduled to start.
Lester House Good of Troupsberg, N.Y., pleaded guilty Wednesday in Kennebec County Superior Court.
The Kennebec Journal (http://bit.ly/14rFVDL ) reports that prosecutors say the 36-year-old Good was visiting relatives in Monmouth in August 2009 when he entered a room where his daughter and another young girl were sleeping. Authorities he touched the other girl under her diaper.
The girl told her mother. She suffered no visible injuries.
Prosecutors are recommending a sentence of 10 years in prison with all but three years suspended and six years' probation. Good was held on $12,500 bail pending sentencing at a future date.
Information from: Kennebec Journal, http://www.kjonline.com/

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Has a dirty device screen got you feeling down? Just Stuff-It™ with this cool screen cleaner that's always at your fingertips. This 2 1/4" x 1 3/4" wipe is made of durable microfiber material, and makes quick work of cellphone, iPad, tablet, and device screens - or even your favorite pair of eye or sunglasses. These cloths are attached to a lobster-style clip that can hook right to your belt or backpack, so it's always ready when you need it. Select from five cool shades and add your logo or message to create a cost-effective tech-savvy branded promotion.
Pricing & Options
Customize your product based on the available color options and decorating methods. If you need more information, simply add this product to the Wish List and we will get back to you with answers.


text:
This week we investigated whether it's worth shutting down your computer regularly, turned your closet full of junk into money, found a great VPN, and more. Here's a look back.
Is it Bad to Shutdown My Computer Regularly or Leave It On All the Time?
Dear Lifehacker, I've heard it's bad to shut down your computer every night. Is it really better to leave it on all the time? I have a high-end machine and want to take care of it but I don't know the best way to do that. More »
Top 10 Tricks for Turning Your Junk Into Money
If you're looking to declutter a little bit, there's no better way to do so than selling your junk online. Here are our top 10 tips and tricks for getting the most money possible out of your old, unwanted stuff. More »
Why You Should Start Using a VPN (and How to Choose the Best One for Your Needs)
You may know what a VPN, or Virtual Private Network, is; you probably don't use one. You really should be using a VPN, and even if you don't think so now, at some point in the future you may consider it as important as your internet connection. More »
1 Million Apple Device IDs Leaked, 12 Million Total Stolen
One million Apple UDIDs (Universal Device IDs) were released to the public today, along with Notification Center tokens, device names, and device IDs, and while none of the data is personal information, it can potentially be tied back to device owners, names, and addresses. More »
Make Your Computer More Self-Sufficient This Weekend
Maintaining your computer, tidying your desktop, and doing a number of other digital chores requires a lot of effort-or at least time-on your part. More »
Why Remote Workers Are More (Yes, More) Engaged
If you work from home, you've probably gotten an eye roll or two from your office-bound friends. But as consultant Scott Edinger explains, working from home or in a remote office can lead to increased productivity, more effective communication, and better teamwork.
Who is more engaged and more... More »
The Best Things to Buy in September
Summer may be slowly drawing to a close, but that doesn't mean September can't still be awesome. Soothe your summer sadness by getting in on great deals this month. More »
A Better Way to Practice
While it may be true that there are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going, there certainly are ways of needlessly prolonging the journey. We often waste lots of time because nobody ever taught us the most effective and efficient way to practice. More »
How to Block Annoying Political Posts on Facebook
I'm all for intelligent dialog, but if there's one thing I hate about election season, it's that some of my friends-god love 'em-can become extremely irritating when politics are involved. More »
Five Best Audio Editing Applications
Whether you need a soundtrack for your film, you're a DJ and need to polish up your sets before sharing them, or you're a musician looking to produce the next big club hit, you need a good audio editor to eliminate noise, convert your files, edit tracks, and output the whole thing. More »
Catch a Liar with the This/That Trap
People fumble around with their words a lot when they're lying. In fact, a liar often adds words so they can truthfully answer questions by obscuring the meaning. More »
Add Some Magical Scenery to Your Desktop with These Landscape Wallpapers
When desktop wallpaper first emerged as a computer customization option, landscapes were the photos of choice. Some of them are so stunning that they seem unreal. More »


text:
Rather interestingly this came up in Sydney this week where a Gallery dumped an artist after apparently borrowing a few items.
September 7, 2012
Zocalo Public Square recently hosted a discussion on "Idea Theft" and asked me to participate.
Theft Is In the Eye Of the Beholder
When Is It OK For Someone in Your Field To 'Steal' an Idea?
Did Samsung violate Apple's intellectual property rights by making a phone with a pinchable screen? Should one-click online ordering be an idea owned by one corporation? Should the day come when Mickey Mouse belongs to everyone? Can Chinese companies make shoes featuring a swoosh? At what point would our paraphrasing of someone else's paraphrasing of what someone else said amount to plagiarism?
Our culture, our laws and our technologies are all grappling these days with the meaning of intellectual property and the boundaries between improving upon past innovations, and misappropriating them. In advance of the Zócalo event "Does Imitation Breed Innovation?" we asked five artistic minds to ponder when it's OK for someone to steal an idea.
The case for artistic celibacy
Most of us would never steal an object…but the issue is not so simple or clear when we're talking about something as intangible as an idea, especially in art. If someone were to copy an image from the Internet and put their name on it, we'd all call that stealing. But what if someone creates an image that uses a similar look, style, technique or subject matter to mine…would that be stealing? And what if upon investigation I found that the other artist's work had pre-dated mine or that they were unaware of my work?
This has happened to me several times. Sometimes the work had been developed in parallel, with each of us unaware of the other's work. Sometimes the other person's work had pre-dated mine, and sometimes people loved my idea and were simply imitating it. All art is evolutionary, some say, built upon the work that comes before.
Ultimately I came to the conclusion that I cannot determine the difference between stealing, copying, imitating, working in parallel or building upon another's work. Most importantly, I shouldn't care! As an artist I need to stay focused on what I am doing and not what others are doing. Not only would that be a waste of time, it would take energy and focus away from my art. My job as an artist is to create as uniquely as possible and I personally do not wish to build upon the work of others.
To facilitate seeing uniquely, I have been practicing "Photographic Celibacy" for the last five years. It is the practice of not looking at other photographers' work. I do this to minimize the influence others have on my art and to reduce my temptation to "copy" them. I personally find the unconscious inclination to imitate to be destructive to the creative process.
Cole Thompson is a black-and-white fine art photographer living on a small ranch in Northern Colorado. He began creating at age 14 and has always worked in black and white. He is often asked, "Why black and white?" His answer: "I think it's because I grew up in a black-and-white world. Television, movies and the news were all in black and white. My heroes were in black and white and even the nation was segregated into black and white. My images are an extension of the world in which I grew up."
How can you not copy a classic drink?
It's never acceptable to take from another and claim it as your own, although in the tight-knit fraternity of cocktail mixing, ideas and past traditions are widely celebrated and emulated.
Today it is en vogue to be a bartender. However, for a long time bartending was not considered to be a professional end goal. In fact we had been considered downright disreputable. That's one reason we celebrate those who came before us, who taught us everything we know and inspire us to be better and question the received wisdom. This questioning spawns conversation or variations. The same thing is done in literature, for example when James Joyce wrote Ulysses he wasn't stealing from the Odyssey but rather having a conversation with Homer.
We too are storytellers but with drinks. When we make a variation of a classic and don't tell the story behind the drink we rob our guests of a rich and enduring connection that they can in turn share with others. I am no different than you when I walk into a bar. When it is a bar manned by someone I like and respect, I am filled with an excitement that borders on mania. I feel the same way every time I make a drink I love, I can't help but tell the story of that drink and when I slide it over to my guest in my mind there is diffused lighting and Teddy Pendergrass playing because that is love.
Zahra Bates is head bartender at Providence Restaurant.
True stealing is better than borrowing
It depends what's meant by the word "steal." It's never OK for someone to literally steal something, however the question usually isn't one to take literally. An idea itself isn't what's valuable. It's how the idea is implemented that creates value.
In Web design, as in any industry with a creative component, people copy each other's ideas all the time. Sometimes these ideas have become so much a part of the standard or the convention that not using them would lead to a less effective design. For example, most people expect to arrive at a website and find a list of links across the top or down the side that serves as global navigation. On the other hand, exactly how one designer crafts a navigation bar isn't part of that convention.
There's a famous quote attributed variously to Picasso, Stravinsky and others, "Good artists borrow, great artists steal," which is often misunderstood, but applies well to this question. When you borrow something, it's not yours. You plan to give it back. When you steal something, you make it yours. It's this notion of making it yours that's the important part of the quote.
The proper way to steal an idea in design or any industry is to make it your own. Take it apart. Understand what makes it a good idea. Assimilate it and internalize it. Mix it with all the other ideas within you. Something new will arise from the combination of the ideas within and the idea you've stolen.
That new idea may recognizably come from the idea you've stolen, but it won't be the same. It will be improved. It will be different. It will be something of your own. When you steal ideas in this way you add to them and contribute to your industry. If all you do is copy them outright you've only taken something that doesn't belong to you.
Steven Bradley is a web designer and WordPress developer who moved to Boulder, Colorado to be near the mountains. He blogs at Vanseo Design and owns and operates a small business forumhelping people learn how to run and market their business more effectively.
Fashion, the ultimate minefield
I work as a professional fashion illustrator. I am also an enthusiastic, non-professional fashion blogger. Of these occupations, illustration is more clearly governed by law when it comes to intellectual property. Although I've discovered that explaining the nuances of copyright to clients unfamiliar with the concept is so confusing in the digital age, the conversation can be counterproductive to developing relationships and doing business. This means that my business is often run more on intuition and good faith than on contract. As an illustrator who works in the fashion industry, my laissez-faire approach to enforcing my own copyright would horrify illustrators who work in traditional publishing. But, with my limited time on Earth, I'd rather draw than practice the law.
Fashion blogging is a virtual Canal Street of grey-market intellectual property violation. A lot of this is lazy blogging—just appropriating other people's creations. Then there are a few clever bloggers who are combining images and ideas in startling new ways, creating a fascinating and viral universal cultural pulse.
When is it not OK to take an idea? That may be the more interesting question. I believe the answer relates to power dynamics. When a wealthy corporation profits off the idea of an independent creative, something feels unjust about that. But if a teenager somewhere throws an appropriated image up on their Tumblr, logging it into the stream of consciousness of modern youth, throwing the book at them just seems petty… and old-fashioned.
Danielle Meder is a fashion illustrator. She blogs at Final Fashion.
Ideas can't be locked up
A great artist never borrows; he steals." Variations on this insinuatingly provocative quip have been ascribed to so many artists—including Balanchine and Stravinksy, to name only two prominent figures in my field, which is dance—that it is impossible to know who originated it. The remark itself appears to have been borrowed—or stolen—multiple times. The point: that an idea completely appropriated, digested, and re-presented by an artist is not merely borrowed but transformed, and therefore rightly owned. If that is true, then stealing is always acceptable—and a prerogative of greatness.
The problem of "stealing" arises only when an aggrieved artist alleges that this taking-and-changing process has been insufficiently transformative, especially when there is prestige, career advantage, or, above all, serious money involved. Anxieties over influencing versus being influenced are sharpened to the point of drawing blood when more than a given instance of influence per se lies at stake. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery only until someone else is getting royalties—or selling at auction prices—you think rightly yours.
Artists of the past would find our modern attitude to ownership of ideas strange, to say the least. In Shakespeare's day, for example, the notion barely existed, if at all. If Shakespeare were our contemporary, he would likely find himself embroiled in a lawsuit for copyright infringement with the chronicler Hollinshed, whose prose the playwright rather openly pillaged. In the words of one scholar, passages of several of Shakespeare's history plays are more or less metrical transcriptions of Hollinshed into blank iambic pentameter. If that isn't stealing, what is?
Of course, few would argue that the body of law that attempts to define intellectual property and copyright of artistic production should be abolished altogether. Nonetheless, if only for the sake of intellectual honesty and good faith, we ought to acknowledge how dubious, if not self-contradictory, it is to attempt somehow to define the expression of an idea (which is intrinsically protected by copyright) apart from an idea itself (which is not protected)—the key distinction that undergirds the whole legal apparatus.
In fact, the single most powerful driver behind the series of extensions of copyright beyond the death of the author has been the Walt Disney company, a corporate behemoth which has successfully pressured the US government to prevent Mickey Mouse from dancing into the public domain—Mickey, who, at his birth in 1928, really was a character, but who has long been reduced (or elevated) to the status of brand identity, corporate icon, and so on.
Ultimately, the whole concept of intellectual "property" that underlies the possibility of one artist's accusing another of "stealing" an idea is rooted in the bourgeois attitude towards knowledge—which is entirely intangible—as a kind of thing. (I mean bourgeois in the historical sense of term, not, as the word is usually used vernacularly in the U.S., as a mere hip insult). The finer the distinctions made in any given lawsuit, the more a detached viewer may see the concerted attempts involved to shore up a giant castle built of sand. For ideas are not, and never really can be, things.
The deepest fear that flows beneath the whole discussion is not the fear of being insufficiently original, or of having our ideas stolen, or of some other artist's making money that is rightfully ours. The immateriality of all mental activity, including all acts of artistic creation, is what terrifies and appalls and makes us all a little bit desperate. Ideas, ultimately, cannot be owned, borrowed, or stolen—and you can't take them with you. What we really fear when we admit that we are afraid of having our ideas stolen is death: the howling, unimaginable silence that will ultimately engulf all we do or have ever done.
Christopher Caines is artistic director of Christopher Caines Dance. His most recently published writing is a commissioned essay on Antony Tudor for the Dance Heritage Coalition's America's Irreplaceable Dance Treasures online project. Upcoming performances include his company's appearance at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City for the Feast of St. Francis/The Blessing of the Animals on October 7.
*Photo courtesy of cangaroojack. Photo of Danielle Meder courtesy of Matthieu Da Cruz.
Rather interestingly this came up in Sydney this week where a Gallery dumped an artist after apparently borrowing a few items.
Amatuers copy professionals steal..
I like the way Steven Bradley and Christopher Caines talk about how great artists steal. These artists decompile the idea, take out the really good things or the parts they are interested in most, and mix it with their own thoughts and emotions. It is a natural way of evolution. It is a kind of cooperation that can make great ideas even better.
A couple of years ago I was photographing mostly nature. And that was fine, but at some point I wanted to develop myself as a photographer. I decided to go to school to really learn about photography. A certain part was about technique, but for the most part it was about the work that was done by great photographers and artists. By being exposed to their ideas and concepts I learned that there were different ways and fields in which to make art.
So looking at the work of other artists is a great help for me, to find my own direction where I want to go with my photography.


text:
Spurs forward Tim Duncan responded to a woman filming him with a cellphone outside a CVS on San Antonio's Northwest Side by flipping her the bird, and now the video has gone viral.
The whole thing sounds like something straight out of the Onion.
In a Deadspin blog headlined "Tim Duncan Smoothly Gives Fan The Finger In Most Boring And Fundamentally Sound Athlete Meltdown Ever," Barry Petchesky details Friday's incident in the parking lot of a CVS on Chase Hill Boulevard:
"Can we talk about that bird? (At the 13-second mark.) Classic Duncan. The woman was sitting inside her car and never said a thing to him, but his preternatural spatial awareness told him she was there. And the finger itself, a masterpiece of efficiency. A quick, easy up-and-under with zero wasted motion, using the glass like the future Hall of Famer has been doing his whole career. It's fantastic that this is how Tim Duncan blows up in public — polite and unobtrusive. He's The Onion's Tim Duncan brought to life."
The target of the Big Fundamental's digital diss sent the video to Deadspin to teach him a lesson, saying she felt he's "setting a bad example for the kids." But Petchesky notes that "if you were teaching kids at the YMCA how to properly flip someone off, this is the video you'd show them."


text:
Chatham Maritime Marina, on the river Medway in Kent, offers first-class berthing and marina services at the heart of a multi-million-pound leisure and retail development that's set to become a major waterfront attraction.
Following expansion, the marina now has 412 berths and is close to a factory outlet shopping complex, multiscreen cinema, and numerous restaurants and bars. There's also a local convenience store stocking essential items, with other facilities planned.
The marina has excellent facilities for boat repairs or maintenance work, with a dedicated DIY area, storage ashore for over 100 boats along with a 16.5-ton crane, a hydraulic boat mover and yacht cradles. There is also a purpose-built lifting dock accessible at all states of tide. You'll find a professional, highly-qualified MDL team on hand at the yard to carry out any lifting. Both petrol and diesel are available, enabling you to make the most of your cruising rather than making special journeys for fuel.
The marina is a perfect base for exploring. The Medway Estuary offers excellent cruising in the lower reaches, with many secluded anchorages, perfect for lazy lunch stops. The river is navigable for around 13 miles from its mouth at Sheerness to Rochester. For boats drawing no more than two metres, the possibilities are even greater. Further up, past Allington Lock, the river meanders through delightful countryside to Maidstone and Tonbridge. From the Medway itself, there's the wider cruising area of the East Coast and its rivers, while Holland is 130 miles away.
The historic Chatham dockyard lies next to the marina, while the attractions of Chatham, Gillingham and Rochester are only minutes away. Access is excellent, with direct road links to the M2 and Central London just 40 minutes away by rail.
Freedom Berthing gives you even more freedom to explore any of the 18 marinas in our UK network stretching from Devon to Suffolk, plus over 130 European destinations in France, Spain and Portugal.FIND OUT MORE ON FREEDOM BERTHING FIND OUT MORE ON PASSEPORT ESCALES
Not found what you're looking for?
Visit our Services Directory


text:
Hello! Ready for a link to our Facebook band page? Too bad:
(I hope you said "no", otherwise what I wrote up there—that "Too bad"—doesn't really make sense. Hopefully you were distracted by all the pictures and such at the new Facebook band page, and didn't notice the fallacy.
Of course, if you did say "no"… why? I mean, I know the joke's based on it, but, really, what's up? Do you just not like Facebook? I get that, I suppose, especially if you're a hardcore MySpace fan and have been fighting the migration to Facebook. Which brings up something I hadn't thought about: what if you don't have a Facebook account? God, I hadn't considered that. Well, if that's the case, well… of course you don't feel ready—you've got a whole bunch of stuff to do. We've just given you a chore. You have to sign up for Facebook—pick out a name, upload a picture, decide what you want people to think your favorite films are, &c. That's a lot to throw at someone who just wanted to see what "Hard 'n Phirm" was. You didn't know you'd have to sign up for anything. You were definitely NOT ready for a link to our Facebook band page.
But you know what? Knowing you, person reading the Internet, even though you don't think you're ready… you are. You are ready. I really believe that. So go ahead… click it.)


text:
Car insurance provides comprehensive protection against collisions, parking and third party damage.
Secure protection when the going gets tough.
Optimum security for you and your commercial vehicle.
Optimal security, even in the water - so you can set sail again as soon as possible.
With the protection of travel insurance, you are insured against all eventualities before and during your trip.


text:
Lance Somerville: Chris Brown - Don't Judge Me (Cover) [User Submitted]
San Diego R&B Singer/Songwriter Lance Somerville does a spot on Cover of Chris Brown's 'Dont Judge Me'. Be sure to check out all his original music on Youtube.
Contact Lance Somerville for Booking at: firstname.lastname@example.com
Twitter.com/RnBperfection Instagram:RnBperfection
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
I was one of the speakers for the Dublin conference on 'Empowering Women Through Secularism' this year. It was a great conference, and a great declaration was made. All we want is to make our world a better place.
1. Secular Values in Society
The secular values that will empower women are science-based reason, equality and empathy in alliance with the principles of feminism.
Priorities in democratic states: secular values will protect and advance already-established freedoms. Cultural and religious beliefs must not be used to deny or limit these freedoms.
Priorities in nondemocratic states: where secular values are not recognized or protected by laws, such laws should be established and applied, and address the issues that deny women full participation in society and government.
2. Separation of Religion and State
Priorities in democratic states: the Constitution should make explicit mention of the separation of religion and state. The state should not fund religions or beliefs. Also, social services, health care services or education accorded to citizens should respect the law; and all state practices should be neutral.
Priorities in nondemocratic states: certain things are fundamental in order to take first steps towards separation of religion and state. Access to education and information should be free and unrestricted. The international community should be vigilant on the application of human rights and take appropriate action where necessary.
3. Human Rights
Human rights are universal, and should be applied equally in democratic and nondemocratic states. Women's rights are human rights, not separate rights for women.
Priorities in democratic states: women should have equal sexual, reproductive and economic rights in practice as well as in legislation.
Priorities in nondemocratic states: the right to autonomy, self-determination as an individual, and fully equal treatment at all levels of society for men and women. This takes precedence over religious or idealogical dogma.
4. Reproductive Rights
Priorities in democratic states: the state should recognize and respect the right to universal and absolute bodily ownership. Reproductive healthcare services should be free, accessible, non-judgmental and objective. Comprehensive evidence-based sex education should be universally available.
Priorities in nondemocratic states: human rights conventions should be honored in their entirety, and directives should not be vetoed on religious grounds or otherwise. International assistance should be given to grassroots campaigns involved in the provision and promotion of comprehensive reproductive health services and education.
5. Politics and Campaigning
Priorities in democratic states: it is essential to define the concept of morality as not being exclusive to religion, and to clearly promote secular feminist values as being beneficial to all citizens. These values should be communicated to citizens in a concise accessible manner using whatever means are available in order to promote the growth of a wider secular community in the future.
Priorities in nondemocratic states: we should amplify the voices of secular feminists fighting back against oppressive regimes throughout the world, and we should promote strategies and tools to overcome technological arrears in nondemocratic countries.


text:
The clocks get turned back Sunday and although that extra hour of snoozing is a treat, don't think it can make a dent in the nation's sleep deficit.
Approximately 1 in 3 Americans get by on six hours or less of slumber, says Dr. Phyllis Zee, director of Northwestern Memorial Hospital's Sleep Disorders Center and director of Sleep Disorders Program at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.
In recognition of Central Standard Time, we checked in with the neurologist to try and understand why going to bed loses out to late-night Web-surfing and "M*A*S*H" reruns.
Q: Your name is attached to a lot of groundbreaking research, including the finding that staying up late can make you pile on the pounds. Can you explain how one impacts the other?
A: In a study that came out last year, (those who went to sleep late) consumed 248 more calories a day, twice as much fast food, more full-calorie sodas and half as many fruits and vegetables as those with earlier sleep times.
So, what we think is that there's this mismatch between the body and the environment. The body says "time to sleep" but the environment says "time to stay up," so the body is looking for more energy. It's like our biology has not evolved to our lifestyle.
Q: What can you tell me about night owls? It's hard to understand why people don't do something they generally enjoy, which is sleeping. It's not like getting a colonoscopy. Can you explain?
A: We've had these broad societal changes, including longer work hours and commute times, increased dependence on technology ... and it all has contributed to the growing sleep-deficiency problem. We boast about how little sleep we need — like it's a badge of honor. Sleep is something that is seen as expendable ... which is why the percentage of men and women reporting sleeping less than six hours per night has increased significantly over the last 20 years.
Q: Why is this a problem?
A: Because there are definite health consequences. There's now beautiful data on how sleep deprivation affects learning, memory, executive function. How you're more at risk for cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders, such as diabetes. It's relevant to every field of medicine.
Q: Is it possible to be an outlier, someone who just doesn't need a lot of shut-eye?
A: Even those people who say they can get by on less than six hours a night, when you measure hormones or glucose and insulin levels, they're not normal. But when they get a little more sleep those metabolic functions improve. The people who say they're doing just fine are probably not doing just fine.
Q: You say that the end of daylight-saving time can disrupt sleep patterns. How can gaining an hour be anything other than a bonus?
A: It's like an hour of jet lag traveling west. So, for a few days, one's internal clock is out of sync with the new time zone. For early-morning types, it may mean waking up earlier than desired, losing an hour of sleep.
Q: How much sleep does a sleep expert get?
A: I try to average seven hours (a night) in the course of a week. Sometimes, it dips down to six, but the next day I know that I shouldn't schedule an early meeting. I do recover on the weekends, but I could do better. Exercise, nutrition and sleep is the pyramid of good health.
Latest Health
Q: What should we do if we want to improve sleep habits?
A: Add a little bit incrementally. Even 15 minutes on each end — or 30 minutes per day — is 150 more minutes per work week.
Q: Did your choice of a research field having anything to do with your name?
A: I married into the name ... so I just got lucky.


text:
Your Shopping Cart is Empty
{{item.price }}
{{item.price_after_item_discount }}
Payment can be made by credit card, Paypal and, in selected countries, by online bank transfer. If a credit card is chosen as the payment method, the amount is charged when the order is shipped. If, for any reason, it is impossible to debit the amount due, the sales transaction is automatically cancelled and the sale is automatically terminated. The payment methods currently accepted are: Visa, Mastercard, Maestro, American Express, Diners, Discover, JCB, Sofort, Bancontact, Cartes Bancaires, Ideal, Paypal, Direct, Maestro, Alipay, WeChat, AmazonPay.
Please note that additional payment authentication may be required by your card issuer such as Verified by Visa, MasterCard Secure Code and AMEX SafeKey.
We suggest you to use the correct billing address details that exactly match the information on your credit card statement.
To prevent internet fraud, payment of orders placed through www.furla.com is managed online by the bank in question through its secure servers.
The bank in question is responsible for the conservation and automatic processing in a secure environment of the information concerning each order, including financial information.
All financial information, such as credit card number, expiration date, etc. is directly managed by the bank in question, which guarantees the security of online transactions.
Furla has no knowledge of the credit card details and is therefore unable to save or store them in any way.
© Copyright - Furla 2020 - P.IVA IT00610091209


text:
Juanita L. (Lawrence) Harrell, 81, of Altha, FL, passed away Friday, January 17, 2014, at her home after an extended illness.
She was born to Lucious and Cecil Lawrence January 7, 1933, in Geneva, AL. She married her husband, the love of her life, Jerry C. Harrell, on March 7, 1951 in Bainbridge, GA. They lived in numerous places over their almost 63 years of marriage, including 23 years when Jerry was in the Navy, returning to live in Altha in 2007.
She was preceded in death by her parents, Lucious and Cecil Lawrence; one brother, Clarence Lawrence; and her twin sister, Armeta Miller.
She is survived by her husband, Jerry; two children, Wayne Harrell and wife, Andrea, and Sheryl Marques and husband, Edward; four grandchildren, Lia, Jessica, Nicole and Edward, Jr.; four great-grandchildren; and three sisters, Edna Ruth Shiver, Dorothy Prescott and husband, James, Vicki Tonda and husband, Jim.
Services will be held at Peavy Funeral Home Chapel in Blountstown on Tuesday, January 21, at 11:00 am (CST) with Pastor Jim McIntosh of Altha First Baptist Church officiating. Interment will follow in Mount Olive Cemetery in Altha. Visitation will be Monday, January 20, at Peavy Funeral Home Chapel from 3:00 until 5:00 pm CST. In lieu of flowers, contribution can be made to Emerald Coast Hospice, 4374 Lafayette Street, Marianna, FL 32446.
All arrangements are under the direction of Marlon Peavy at Peavy Funeral Home in Blountstown (ph. 674-2266).
OBITUARY - Harrell
No Trackbacks
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)


text:
Researchers at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) Medical School are studying brown fat with a goal of fighting obesity.
UTHealth researchers Ali Azhdarinia, Ph.D., seated, and Alexes Daquinag, Ph.D., have developed a brown fat detection approach that worked in a preclinical study.
Right now, it is hard for researchers to spot brown fat cells at the molecular level, which is hindering efforts to harness their ability to guard against obesity. To address that issue, scientists developed a brown fat detection method and it worked in an animal model. This proof-of-concept study is published today in Nature Communications.
"Brown adipose tissue, responsible for heat generation, has high importance in the context of metabolic diseases. Brown fat is more common in children but has recently been discovered in adult humans. However, measurement of its body distribution has remained technically challenging. We report a peptide probe that zeroes in on brown fat and can be used for localization of this tissue in mice by whole body imaging," said Mikhail Kolonin, Ph.D., the study's senior author and associate professor at the UTHealth Center for Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine. He receives support from a John S. Dunn Research Scholar Fund and is holder of the Jerold B. Katz Distinguished Professorship in Stem Cell Research at UTHealth.
If this brown fat detection strategy proves effective in clinical trials, it could allow doctors to personalize treatments based on the ratio of brown fat to white fat of their patients. Further, it might help monitor stimulation of brown fat through prospective therapies.
"This is the first targeted imaging approach for the detection of brown fat," Kolonin said.
Kolonin teamed up with UTHealth medical imaging researcher Eva Sevick-Muraca, Ph.D., to develop a near-infrared fluorescence imaging probe that binds to brown adipose vasculature and emits tiny amounts of skin-penetrating light that can be picked up by highly sensitive cameras. Sevick-Muraca is professor, director of the Center for Molecular Imaging and holder of the Nancy and Rich Kinder Distinguished Chair in Cardiovascular Disease Research at UTHealth.
The probe is a peptide comprised of a series of amino acids. Kolonin's team tested numerous combinations before finding one that selectively localizes to brown fat when administered intravenously. Sevick-Muraca's team coupled the peptide with a dye that could be picked up during whole body scans.
Other UTHealth Medical School contributors include co-lead authors Ali Azhdarinia, Ph.D., and Alexes Daquinag, Ph.D., and co-author Sukhen Ghosh, Ph.D. Contributing from The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Houston was graduate student Chieh Tseng.
Kolonin and Sevick-Muraca operate laboratories in the UTHealth Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine for the Prevention of Human Diseases and are on the faculty of the graduate school.
The study titled "A peptide probe for targeted brown adipose tissue imaging" received support from National Institutes of Health (1R21DK090752).
Rob Cahill
Media Hotline: 713-500-3030


text:
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, March 4, 2013 – In recognition of International Women's Day 2013, Perimeter Institute is hosting two conferences to celebrate and promote women in scientific careers, as well as achievements made by women in the sciences. Inspiring Future Women in Science
On Thursday, March 7, 2013, Perimeter's Educational Outreach team is hosting a half-day conference for high school students entitled "Inspiring Future Women in Science." The goal of this event is to bring together like-minded young women with a strong interest in science and expose them to the rewards, challenges, and possibilities of a career in science.
The conference will open with a keynote address by Dr. Adriana Ocampo, NASA Science Mission Program Executive. The conference program also includes a panel discussion featuring women that are currently involved in science-based careers, as well as a speed mentoring session providing conference participants with the opportunity to engage in small group discussions with representatives from a variety of science career paths.
Further information and the conference program are available here.
Women and Physics: Past, Present, and Future
On Friday, March 8, 2013, Perimeter Institute will host "Women in Physics: Past, Present, and Future," a full-day conference that marks International Women's Day, and is made possible with the sponsorship of Wilfrid Laurier University, the Laurier Centre for Women in Science, and the University of Waterloo.
The Women and Physics conference will bring together historians, philosophers, and social scientists who study gender issues in science, as well as physicists from Perimeter Institute and other centres. Speakers and panelists include:
• John Berlinsky, Director of Academic Programs at Perimeter Institute and Professor of Physics & Astronomy (emeritus) at McMaster University
• Sampa Bhadra, experimental particle physicist and Professor in the Faculty of Science and Engineering at York University
• Melanie C. W. Campbell, Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Waterloo and cross-appointed to the School of Optometry
• Carla Fehr, Wolfe Chair in Science and Technology Studies in the Philosophy Department at the University of Waterloo
• Shohini Ghose, Associate Professor in the Department of Physics and Computer Science, and Director of the Centre for Women in Science at Wilfrid Laurier University
• Rachel Ivie, Associate Director of the Statistical Research Center (SRC) at the American Institute of Physics
• Paul E. Jessop, Dean of Science and Professor in the Department of Physics & Computer Science and Wilfrid Laurier University
• Adriana Ocampo, NASA Science Mission Directorate Program Executive
• Natalia Toro, Perimeter Faculty member and theoretical particle physicist
The goals of the conference are to highlight the achievements of women in science, to encourage current female students to continue to pursue physics, to catalyze conversations on their future in science, and to foster collaborations that strengthen the community of women in physics.
Further information and the conference program are available here.