So I saw Captain America: The Winter Soldier last night. It was pretty enjoyable, though I think I agree with the reviewers who complain that it shines when it goes in for character moments but is mostly too focused on world-building and spectacle -- particularly the final action sequence, which is largely interchangeable with any of the explosive battles that superhero flicks tend to end with these days. (While I'm not the fan of The Dark Knight that everyone else is, I applaud that film for its comparatively quiet concluding confrontation.) In any case, those flaws aren't immediately apparent while one is caught up in the action onscreen -- they're the kinds of things that one ponders after one has left the theater. (They're also the kinds of things one ponders while reading negative reviews of a film, which I tend to do for most movies I see; I feel these reviews offer perhaps more balanced and interesting analyses than overzealous fanboy praise.)

What did occur to me while the movie was running was that holy heck is it long! It's 2 hours and 16 minutes, which is too long for my tastes (for a superhero flick, anyway) -- and it seemed even longer since I had to piss like a racehorse by the 80-minute mark. I sat there with my legs crossed and tried to hold it, since I figured the movie had been on long enough and would probably be over soon... and then it kept going, and going, and then there was an action sequence and then it still kept going... so finally I rushed off to the bathroom at what seemed like a quiet moment. (I'm informed that I picked probably the best time to go, since it sounds like I chose the longest stretch of nothing significant and/or amusing happening in the film.) It does seem like even action films these days are striving for "epic" lengths. Admittedly, these lengths do (artificially) imbue the films with a certain feeling of depth -- if only because 2+ hour runtimes used to be reserved for weightier material -- but I find myself missing the tighter, less ponderous, and more fun adventures of less recent years. (It's worth noting that, for a short while, Daredevil was actually my favorite superhero film. Sure, it's goofy as heck -- the titular hero's playground foreplay with Elektra never fails to send me into a fit of giggles -- but that is a movie that really keeps things moving.) Ah well. (more...)

Hey, all! It's been a while, hasn't it? I've been somewhat more active on tumblr -- and much more active on Facebook -- but not so much here. I'd like for that to change. (I never did figure out how to reliably integrate the tumblr content into this blog; I'll have to look into that again.) We'll see.

Anyway, if you're friends with me on Facebook (or in real life), you've probably noticed that lately I've been really into Sirena. The group consists of a trio of ladies who travel to renaissance festivals and put on a show in which they pretend to be mythical sirens, singing and dancing and drumming with purported intent to draw in the audience members and ensnare their souls. If you know me, you know that sort of thing is right up my alley -- the rennfest stuff is less my deal, but I'm all about mythology and monsters and such -- so you're probably not surprised that I dig the group based on my description alone. (more...)

Well, today I learned that ducks are -- or are prone to becoming -- cannibals. This passage (from the NSW Department of Primary Industries Agriculture website) is particularly chilling:

"Although cannibalism can begin in ducks of any age, ducklings over 4 weeks old are more prone to develop this vice. The underlying reasons for birds turning to cannibalism are not known, but it is associated with boredom..."

Duck cannibalism is associated with BOREDOM, people. Somebody get those ducks some knitting needles STAT. ((That said, ducks are also apparently rapists and necrophiliacs. So riddle me this: how do they ever get bored?!?))

Check out this blog entry on Real Clear Science for a firsthand account of duck cannibalism, and here's the horrific "Scientifically Accurate DuckTales" video that sent me down this corkscrew-shaped road to nightmares in the first place. ((Though I already knew about the corkscrew penises and labyrinthine vaginas. *shudder*))

Yep. I think I hate toy collectors.

I don't hate all toy collectors, obviously. Some -- many -- most -- of my favorite people collect toys. I collect toys. But I never set out to collect toys, and I don't much enjoy the activity of collecting, per se. I don't pride myself on the size or value of my collection or the rarity of items in it, and I don't compare it to the collections of others as if it makes me more or less worthy -- I hate the "he who dies with the most toys wins" mentality. I just really love toys, so I buy a lot of toys, and I've amassed a collection because of that.

So it's the collectors who treat collecting itself like it's a sport -- like it's golf, even, 'cause that's the expensive one -- whom I really despise. I want toys, so I guess I "hunt" for them -- but not only do I not enjoy the hunt, I don't think it should be necessary. (My favorite lines right now are TMNT and My Little Pony, because they don't require hunting. I don't have to buy a figure on sight, afraid I might never see it again -- it's all but guaranteed that I'll see it again, multiple times, over the course of many, many months.) I hate the hoops companies like Mattel make us jump through to collect certain lines, and I hate how difficult it is to get most convention exclusives. (I found NECA's process to be really easy this year, but I even have problems with that. It just so happened that I was sitting at the computer when the figures were made available the second time, and folks who were elsewhere should be able to get them too. I preferred it when NECA sold the exclusives via their Amazon store.) (more...)

So like most of the random articles I read these days, this one was posted by someone on Facebook. I'm kinda not sure what to think of it, though I suppose it's not terribly surprising. Here, have a look:

Addicting Info: Republican Uses Noah's Ark Myth To 'Disprove' Man Made Climate Change

Yep.

Though I will say that the author of that article didn't impress me with her so-called takedown of Barton:

"Barton says that the Great Flood is an example of Climate Change, when in fact the Bible states that the earth was flooded to rid the earth of sin. ... So in other words the Great Flood was not a change in climate at all but God’s wrath brought upon all of the sinners and his intention was to cleanse the earth and start anew."

It could totally be both, though; the author is confusing God's intent with His potential mechanism of action. The torrential rains that caused the Flood (in one account) could have been a byproduct of God-made climate change -- which God engineered because He was super pissed at humanity and wanted to wipe the slate clean. There's no necessary contradiction there.

(I suppose one could make the argument that the change in climate that caused the Flood was more sudden -- and thus doesn't count as climate change proper -- but the rain that lasted for forty days and forty nights could have been the exclamation point at the end of a climate-changey sentence God started writing decades earlier.)