Posts from 28th February 2006

28
Feb 06

Glastonbury veterans – your lives will never be the same again!

Pumpkin PublogPost a comment • 699 views

Yes! They will be MUCH DRUNKER!

Yes, the fine fares of the Brothers Bar, Jazz Word Stage, Worthy Farm will shortly be available in pubs, supermarkets and indie toilets near you! In four flavours including:

– Perry!
– Apple cider!
– Strawberry Mixed Pear Cider!
and…
FESTIVAL STRENGTH PEAR CIDER!

Would the last person to slump in a bin please turn out the light?

NEVERENDING NU-GOLDEN AGE OF KIDDITOONS NEVER er ENDS

Do You SeePost a comment • 549 views

i had thought that w.PPG and cow’n’chicken IR Weasel and dexter’s lab in the autumnae of their respective senescentia, the amazin NON-adult cartoon bonanza of a decade ago had fizzled a bit but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The Fairly OddParents:

Atomic Betty:

The Amazing Adrenalini Brothers:

FRANK AND NANCY SINATRA – “Something Stupid”

Popular32 comments • 10,230 views

#231, 15th April 1967

The sort of song “Something Stupid” is depends very much on who’s singing it. Sung as a solo it’s a more bitter than sweet dispatch from that relationship relegation zone known as the ‘long game’, the limbos between friendship and more, or between casual and serious. Sung as a duet – each partner trading lines – it’s a light comedy of misunderstanding, an are-we-aren’t-we pas de deux.

And this? This is neither. It’s a duet in the most unequal sense, a Frank Sinatra song with his daughter treading gingerly and exactly in his footprints, a ghost on the fringes of the record. Frank takes the lead in the phrasing (and sounds professional, if not heartfelt) and what, exactly, is Nancy doing here? It’s especially odd given what a charismatic presence she could be on her own singles. The first time I play the song her dutiful background lilt sounded strange, on repeated listens it’s actively irritating: a distraction to a song which could have been charming.

Jurassic Beaver

Proven By SciencePost a comment • 425 views


I cannot seem to garner too much excitement for the Jurassic Beaver. Beavers are cute enough, and I had a soft spot for the cartoon the Angry Beavers (though much more for the angry bit than their genus). But what is aprticualrly nice about htis BBC Science story is the “artists impression” of the beaver.

I am not convinced an artist has been near that photograph of what a beaver looks like, today.

All Film Should Be TV

Do You SeePost a comment • 356 views

So it has come to this. Final Destination 3. A film whose relation to the original pair is merely a concept, and the amount of fun said concept (killing people in far fetched accidents) can provide. When a film gets to this point in a franchise however one wonders where it can go.

STRAIGHT TO VIDEO SEQUELS: This I find quite exciting. The FD films are not very expensive, but clearly the directors have always had enough money for their excessive exploding head effects. But as the concept of the film is innovative accidental death, surely the smaller budgets of STV could actual improve the possibilities. As noted, the deaths in FD3 rely and awful lot on bloody, pulped bonces. Where are the comedy poisonings, the falling from heights? Low budget often leads to innovation.

TELEVISION: Consider this. Final Destination Investigations. Someone dies in mysterious circumstances. The police think it is foul play. But actually it is just death getting what was cheated from him. The FDI have to prove this. All the time while bizarre deaths go on around them.

Or of course they could always just take the boring medical bits out of Casualty…