Senior Project excuse used here

Dear Readers,

I'm working on a play with a complicated pool and tons of props so I can not do as many posts as I'd like.  I have a suggestion of what to do in my absence.

Watch Kings.

That is, watch Kings if you're really into drama's with a lot of political intrigue and deep characters.  It has a lot of stuff that normal tv lacks, including a well written script.  I will write more about it later, but now rehearsals.

Love,

d20 Sapphire.

Give Dollhouse a Second Chance.

On a whim late last night I decided to check out Dollhouse again.  I only saw an io9 title saying that it was "the best thing on tv last night" so I wanted to see if it actually picked up.  I didn't feel the need to catch up with the rest of the series, it was past midnight and I actually wanted to wake up in the morning refreshed.  Also, I did see the second episode but was still unimpressed, so hadn't seen anything since.  I went from seeing episode two a few weeks ago to episode 6.  

It was pretty stellar.

Dollhouse is finally doing what good sci-fi should: asking tough questions.  How wrong is it to have a fantasy, and how far are you willing to go for it?  How dangerous is knowledge to those we wish to keep naive?  And an all time favorite, who can you really trust?

Spoiler Alert

The last episode involved a man who only wishes to be with his with for that one surprise he never got to show her.  Echo was suppose to be that woman for that job until FBI agent Paul figured out what was going on and dropped in hoping to get something out of the encounter.  He sees Echo, which falters his focus and then talks to the guy who rented Echo out.

This conversation was where I actually gained interest.  Patten Oswalt's character, the "renter" of Echo, legitimately lost love at exactly the point where his wife would've been paid back for all her faith in him.  He never got to surprise her with the dream home he bought for both of them due to her dying in a car crash when she was driving on her way to the surprise.  That's horrible!  There's nothing illegitimate about wanting to give her that surprise.  This isn't some twisted rich pervert who wants a sex toy for a weekend.  This is a guy who has an unrealized dream, and will do anything to have his wife back, even if it's only for a brief time.  

I started thinking about it.  The Dollhouse is a twisted sort of prostitution, but if I lost the boyfriend in a horrible crash right before everything went right for us, I would be tempted to do the same thing this renter did.  Does that make me a bad person?  Maybe, but I never said I wasn't one.

This, along with other questions about trust and power, were asked numerous times.  And don't forget about the questions you have for specific characters.  What the hell are Adelle's motives in the long run?  Are Sierra and Victor falling in love, and is that dangerous?  Will Paul ever feel satisfied if he ever finds out about Dollhouse?  If the 1st episode was more like the 6th episode, I wouldn't have had doubts about Dollhouse like I did before.  Joss Whedon is finally showing us the quality programming he knows he can produce.

SyFy?

I used to love the Sci-fi Channel.  It was full of Star Trek, The Twilight Zone and other smart programs that made me consider it as part of my channel surfing routine.  Over the years it started acquiring some low quality shows and movies, with the occasional gems like Battlestar Galactica and Farscape before that.  I stopped checking it out unless I knew another Outer Limits marathon was on.  A couple months ago they were advertising a wrestling fight they were airing on the channel, and I knew that the Sci fi Channel I loved had changed drastically.

Apparently the Sci-fi Channel sees that they need to change something, so they decided to change their name to appeal to a wider audience.  So what did they change their name too?

SyFy.

My first response: ew.  My second response: what was wrong with the original spelling?

I can understand not completely changing the name so people don't become confused, but misspelling branding always bothers me.  Like people don't know what it says if it's spelled different.  It still invokes the idea that there are science-related stories presented on the channel.  As long as that programming is going to be on that channel, you'll get that audience.

Also, the wider audience has more to do with the programming, and if you have crappy programing interspersed with a few golden moments your channel is still going to get sucky ratings.  Quality, not name changes, will change my opinion.

I would speak more on the subject, but looking at the spelling made my brain fry, so I need a break.  Later readers!

AIG should commit honorable suicide says senator

Click here to read the article.

This obviously is not a "geek" concern, but I thought you may like to know what some of the suggested solutions are for AIG being a bunch of selfish false finance profits.  

AIG has definitely proven that they have no regard for showing some responsibility in this whole mess, so of course people are going to respond negatively.  But for Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) to suggest to rid their existence as an alternative to resigning in shame is definitely hilarious.  So I wanted to share the news with you.  Enjoy.

Geekiness in the Office

I'm sorry that I have been absent from my blogging post, but my spring break is proving to not be a break.  Instead it's a combination of catching up with people while trying to juggle my senior project and my job search.  The last one is more of what I want to talk about.

I'm in the middle of a career change--from student to whatever the hell looks appealing to me in the Chicagoland area.  I'm hoping to find something that appeals to one of my two degrees and involves management.  So I'm going on job interviews.

A lot of jobs interviews involve questions about you and what your interests are during your free time.  The question is when do you mention you are a geek?

I am not afraid to bring it up when the question is asked that I like video games, but RPGs are a little different.  D&D has a stigma to it to some people (who are mostly much older than me). And trying to explain what an RPG is for the first time is a little hard.  And the assumptions made of people who admit that they are only a little bit into Star Trek or LOTR sometimes causes people to associate a sane fan to the extreme fanatics.  How can you tell if it's a bad idea to mention these interests?

Now there are certain jobs where these interests are common,  but that's not true for the majority of the jobs out there.  I'm not saying it's a detriment everywhere but there are some interviewers who I wouldn't mention "Yeah I'm a Dungeon Master on the weekends."  

Any experience with that readers?  You've been light on the comments recently, I would like to hear what you all have to say.

Parenting parents is NOT the answer.

GamePolitics.com has lead me to another interesting article about a law in New Zealand where parents can be arrested for allowing their underage kids to access R-18 (M) rated video games.  It's supposed to shock parents into caring about what their children play.  In other terms, it's supposed to get parents to be parents.

I can't believe that we have to tell people how to raise their kids.  I'm not saying that just anyone can raise a kid, but at the same time if someone is going to introduce their kid to an kind of media that involves mature content, the parent should monitor it.  I don't see anyone doing anything similar with books, movies, magazines, or even violent toys.  Maybe those laws were proposed in the past, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate.

I do understand that for some reason today we like to blame everyone but the parents when trying to figure out why kids go bad.  It's good to support the idea of parents actually parenting.  Threatening people to parent with $10,000 fines or jail time is not the way.  That's just being a dick.

What are your opinions, dear readers?

Interesting tidbit from my class

On occasion class can relate to my nerdiness without me trying to hard.  Today it was in my shakespeare seminar, and it relates to cross-dressing.  I know, it already sounds like a stretch but here me out.

Back when Shakespeare was writing his plays men would do all the parts, including young men who would play all the women's roles.  So we're discussing the costume history and how changing in and out of costumes for certain plays was a bit of a hassle but completely manageable.  The subject of the Puritan's objections came up and why.  My professor explained that some people back in the day felt that women were merely underdeveloped men, and that one could change between the sexes if one worked it right.  Hence, the theatre was a dangerous place because all these boys pretending to be women all the time would soon be changed to women just because of all the practice they were getting.  

It turns out it was mostly a puritanical logic, hence a christian belief.  I started thinking... isn't that the same logic that right wing christians use against video games?  They do sort of hold to the belief that violent video games will transform a person to be violent.  That playing GTA IV will make you kill hookers for cash and deal drugs while doing mob errands.

Coincidence? 

The elusive d20 Sapphire in her natural habitat--college

Spring break is coming up for me, which means midterms before that, which means I should be studying.  Unfortunately that leads to less posts.  I hope to be able to bring you all something here and there before break, but until then I'm afraid my posting may be a little light.

So you don't miss me too much, here is a video from Barely Political, featuring the Obama Girl and Wii Sports.