Spontaneous Musings

Decided to see the movie Tar with Wales today.

Discovered much to my annoyance, that Wales is a very noisy and somewhat animated movie partner. During the movie, she sighed, cursed, grabbed my arm, and exclaimed "Oh God" or "Oh my God" or "Shit".

I, on the other hand, was fairly quiet in comparison.

It wasn't too big an issue - and I didn't complain about it. If anything it made the movie more interesting. But I did worry a little about the people around us.

The movie itself is a Todd Field film, and much like his other films focuses on an anti-hero and takes the audience deep inside this character's point of view. It's more of an extended character sketch - focusing on one character's emotional, mental, physical arc. Considering it was focusing only one character - it could have been a lot tighter. The movie was three hours long, and felt at times interminable. Wales and I agreed on that - actually we agreed on everything about the film.

I'm not sure it was the best film for me to see today mood wise. I might have been better off with Ticket to Paradise, this one felt a bit like a horror movie. But, I was curious about the movie - the reviews had indicated that it was a fun and twisty tour de force. (It wasn't. I'm beginning to think these reviewers are on something.)

The set-up is Lydia Tar, top composer, who studied with Leonard Bernstein, actions are starting to catch up with her. ( spoilers )
Bits of the film remind me a lot of Black Swan - so if you hated that film, I doubt you'd like this one. It's not an easy film to watch at times. And it ends oddly.

But it does stay with me. I'd have preferred one that didn't, though, this weekend.

[I was admittedly distracted during it by a recent loss in my family - another one. My cousin died this weekend. So I kept thinking about him and his Mom off and on all day long. Grief isn't a straight line or time line or linear in anyway, it is best described as a spiral. Circling up and down.]

***

Just finished watching Peripheral the Amazon Prime series adapted from William Gibson's cybernetic science fiction thriller. It's good. But I also adore William Gibson's writing. He's among my favorite sci-fi writers - among the few, I'd put in the literary category of sci-fi. Hard science, with something to say, and falling more in the speculative category.

Peripheral is about two gamers in Appalachia who make their money playing video game simulations. Flynn is excellent at them - and uses her brother's avatar to play. She's female and can't play as herself - but she can play as him or in a male body. And she gets to higher levels than he does.

Little does she know that the game they are playing in 2032 is taking place in real time in London in 2099. The new headset she puts on - places her in an Avatar's mechanical body in 2099, where she feels his pain, etc, even if she just the puppeteer pulling his strings.

Well produced, acted, and with great F/X, the first episode was even better than expected. If a tad long. Amazon likes to do 85 minute episodes or episodes that are much longer than 45 minutes to an hour.

Or happy Memorial Day? Seems odd to say that. Time was I visited the graves with my Gran on this day - but that was over twenty some years past. (She died in 09, and I moved in 96, so...the last time I did that was probably 1994 or 95. Now my mother's cousin A visits Liberty, Mo once a year, at Memorial Day, to do it. I don't know who will do it when she passes, she's eighty. [No, it won't be me - can't drive and you kind of have to. Well that and I've an aversion to the mid-west.]

Didn't do much today outside of robot vacuum, and watch television. It was hot. I did make it to the grocery store and back - mainly for lunch items, and got a sick sinus headache for my efforts.

***

Television

1. Crimson Peak by Guillimoro Del Toro (whose name I can't spell). It stars Tom Hiddleston, Jessica Chastain, Mia Waswachowski, Jim Beaver, and Charlie Hunam. Hiddleston and Chastain pretty much own the movie.

It kind of reminds me of Dragonwyck, except with a murderous sister and incest. Or basically it's Bluebeard but with a murderous sister.

This is a common trope. The only thing Del Toro does differently is he has the brother and sister in love, and incestuous, and he kind of focuses on the sister's love for the brother - having her state at the end, that love makes monsters of us all.

The difficulty with this film is honestly the difficulty with all of Del Toro's films - he's more interested in his lovable monsters than the human characters. Also he tends to go for visual style over characterization or plot.

At any rate, it's not a scary film - it's more of a romantic gothic film? But in the vein of Dragonwyck not Jane Eyre.

Some nice visual imagery though.

[Available on Netflix, everywhere else you have to spend money for it.]

2. The Offer - via Paramount Plus. This is a series about the making of The Godfather. The principle characters are Al Ruddy (portrayed by Miles Teller - who took the role from Arnie Hammer, gee, guess why?), Robert Evans (Mathew Goode), Bettye McCart (Juno Temple), Mario Puzo, Francis Fort Coppla, and a producer portrayed by Burn Gorman.

It's okay. It's pretty much Paramount Studios and Hollywood during the late 1960s early 70s. Robert Redford, Frank Sinatra (who hated The Godfather), Mia Farrow, Ali McGraw, and various others pop up. And it focuses on the difficulties of getting a movie made, and producing it. The focus or central characters are the producers.

3. Star Trek : Strange New Worlds - it has almost the same credits music and entry signature as the Original Trek - with Pike making it up and giving voice to it. This is basically Star Trek or the voyages of the Enterprise with Christopher Pike, before James T. Kirk took over his crew.
It has Uhura, Spock, and Lt. Samuel Kirk. I like the cast. Also Ethan Peck makes a great Spock.

First episode was interesting, and there's some tension in the series - due to Pike's vision on Discovery of his horrific death and paralysis. (Which most Star Trek fans, or anyone who has seen the Star Trek episode "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" - that is referenced in Star Trek : Discovery, and shows Pike's fate. It's a disturbing episode in the original canon, and I'd love it if they were to undo it.) Anyhow Pike fears this ending, and his fear is affecting some of his decision making, until one of his officers gives him an epiphany of sorts - "those who fear death are more likely to live longer and survive longer than those who don't. If you can't see your death or imagine it, the quicker it will happen."

Also the episode references the classic film "The Day the Earth Stood Still" with the Enterprise playing a role that is similar to the aliens in the classic film.

3. Picard - I made the colossal mistake of watching the first episdoe of S2 (which is easy to do on these streaming channels which assume you've seen the first season already, I hadn't.) So I was confused by it.
I kept thinking - okay who are these characters and why are they doing whatever it is that they are doing? Also, why is Picard so messed up? And why did Q show up.

I just have to watch S1 first to understand it, apparently.

S2 is playing games with time travel and alternate timelines. I get the feeling Picard is playing into the temporal wars that are referenced in Star Trek Discovery.

What I like about the Star Trek franchise - and why I prefer it to the Star Wars franchise - is it kind of branched out more and created new characters, while at the same time building upon the old ones. Also it has managed to resolve and complete its character arcs in a satisfying fashion. With all of the original actors involved. We get all of Lt. Spock's history, including his back story (in Discovery and Strange New Worlds), all of Kirk's, all of Picard's, pretty everyones. And they weren't afraid to branch out and character new characters.

Add to all of the above? Trak is consistent, and explains the inconsistencies well.

Star Wars franchise - only works well when it veers completely away from the Skywalker/Solo clan. Mandalorian and Rogue One were for the most part pretty good. But the films that center on that clan with the exception of the first three films, and maybe Force Awakens, are a mess. As are the series.

Trek in sharp contrast has for the most part been fairly consistent. And rewarded long-time viewers with satisfying endings for their favs.

***

On the book front - I downloaded a lot of free gothic romances to the Kindle. There were four or five of them - rec'd by a blogger who hunted for modern writers of gothic romance that were good. The three that cost something - I ignored, one was Dragonwyck by Anya Seton (moustache twirling sociopathic love interest/villain and simpering, somewhat stupid, damsel in distress - with a young doctor who saves her - kind of a dumb version of Crimson Peak - hard pass), and the other was Jane (basically Jane Eyre with a Reclusive Rock Star - screamed New Adult, and hard pass), there was also one that was clearly the beginning of a mystery series and featured a serial killer (another hard pass).

Finished "Stitch in Time" - which Crimson Peak kind of reminded me of, except I liked Stitch better. Felt Stitch was a touch less cliche. Although both were problematic in that they followed common tropes. And Stitch felt a touch sexist, misogynistic in its trope. I know the author thought she was being clever with the twist, but I'd have gone the way I originally thought she was going - to be honest. This had the same problem that Crimson Peak had (without the incest, and the brother isn't nasty and is older, and rather sane). Stitch also focused more on the romantic and less on the horrific.

Will state that I agree with many of the reviewers in that Stich is among the few time travel stories that actually worked for me. Mainly because the heroine is not permitted much past the hero, so can't affect the timeline easily. Okay worked for the most part - it didn't bug me the way most of these time travel stories do.

Off to bed. Hopefully I won't wake up five times in the night like I have the last few nights. The disrupted sleep is resulting in irritability and increased tiredness.

As long-promised, I finally got around to seeing Dune last night. I had to revive my HBO subscription, because apparently it would let me see what was offered but not allow me to watch anything. So I did it through my Roku television platform. (This actually justified getting the ROKU Smart Television as opposed to the FIRE Smart Television - if I was still on the Fire Stick? I'd not have been able to do it, since HBO didn't renew its agreement with Amazon.)

After much deliberation on the matter - I chose to watch it on HBO Max as opposed to the movie theater. I can always watch it in the movie theater later in the month, if so desired (although unlikely).

As luck would have it? Wales called this morning and told me she'd love to see Dune in the theaters. I told her that I wished she'd told me that a week ago, also I had a feeling she'd be bored by it. It's hard sci-fi, with a lot of exposition.

This bodes the following question - or the only one I had when reading everyone's reviews of the film - do you absolutely need to see this film in a movie theater to enjoy it?

Well, it depends. (Which is pretty much how most folks answered that question.)

1. What size television you have at home and if it is HDTV or higher?

This is a very dark film, a lot of it takes place at night - I'd say in fact 60-75% of it appears to be shot at night, and/or in darkened rooms. So, you won't be able to see it on a small television set, or one that doesn't have the ability to brighten or darken the picture. [There's one particular scene towards the end that I barely could see - and it may have been clearer in a movie theater. Granted it's a scene I don't care about seeing one way or the other, but you might. ( spoiler )

Also, it's shot in a manner that requires a big screen television or movie theater screen. There's a scene where we see a hand sticking up from the sand in the desert and the sheer scope. OR another, where we see the huge scope of Arrakis, the city on Dune, and the people in relation to it. It's shot for IMAX. So wide screen visuals. This works fine for 55 inch and up, not so much for anything below that.

I can think of a couple of scenes that would not work on my old television sets. The aforementioned bits where we see the armies, the desert, and the sandworms. Also, like I said before - most of the film is at night. We have a scene where the Bene Gesserit (Jessica's Order of Female Mystics) arrives on her home planet - that is at night, the only light from the space ship and the clouded moons, with rain and wind...we see their vague shapes scampering in a group forward, lit only by the space ship behind them. I don't think that scene works well on a small screen.

2. If you have a big screen television is it better to see in the theaters?

Unless you are "really" into cinematography, and lighting, and well subtle film score and film editing - it's not necessary. (In other words a film geek.) Lord of the Rings this isn't. Nor is it Lawrence of Arabia, or for that matter 2001: A Space Odyssey. Or even Star Wars for that matter. It's more Game of Thrones.

I thought about it for Hans Zimmer's soundtrack. But the soundtrack isn't that big a deal. I barely noticed it, and I've watched a lot of films with noticeable soundtracks on my television including Hamilton, Snyder's Justice League, Game of Thrones, Star Wars, Sense and Sensibility, etc. Also, I had the sound turned up and on theater setting.

3. Despite all of the above, would it work better in a theater?

I don't really know? I think this is mainly a subjective thing? I mean it depends on your own personal comfort level regarding movie theaters right now? I can't do movie theaters yet, and preferred seeing it at home. And from what I saw on-screen, I didn't feel cheated in any way. Your mileage may vary.

That said, the following factors may make a difference in how you view it and if you decide to view it:

It's hard sci-fi, with heavy mystical philosophical leanings, so in other words? Not really much of an action film, and not really much of space film either. (Both are in it, just not the central focus?)

It's well-done, and well-made, and they don't use a lot of CGI - like Snyder did with Justice League, Villenevue (sp?) used film stock not digital to make the film, which is why they are telling folks to see it in the theater...but my eye didn't pick up on it.

Another comparison to Justice League? Also to Game of Thrones? It's a dark film, the color scheme is varying shades of black, white, grey, and beige, we do get varying sparks of blood red (it's actual blood) and sky blue (eye color only) which really stand out, since they are the only colors we see outside of black, gray, sandy yellow aka beige and white.

This is not a colorful film.

[ETA - since everyone appears to be commenting on that last line - clarification? It's not a colorful book. The film shouldn't be colorful. That was Lynch's mistake with the 1984 film - it was too colorful and over-the-top. Dune isn't a colorful book. It's not meant to be.]

4. What about plot? Will I be bored? Is it exposition heavy? Would it be better to watch at home, take breaks, rewind, etc? Does it help if you've read the book first?

One of my many Cousins complained online that it lacked plot. I don't think that's true, but I can see why he felt that way. Like I said above, under #3, it's not really an action film. The book isn't either. There's a reason the book was so difficult to adapt, and has to a degree defied adaptations. It's more of a cerebral book than visual one. Heavy emphasis on world building and character, with a convoluted political plot. There are appendixes, and it has its own language, religion, political schematic, etc. As a result, there's a lot exposition in the first film - in order to get to the plot, and the plot kind of gets lost within the exposition. Because of this - it kind of helps if you've read the book at some point?

I read the book over thirty years ago. Sometime around 1981 or 82, I never really got around to re-reading it, mainly because I was so obsessed with it in the 1980s, that I kind of devoured and memorized it. I also saw both of the previous adaptations. (This is by far and away the best adaptation that I've seen to date, and the best casting. The casting was surprisingly spot on.) Note? I only read the first book, and around the age of 14 or 15 years of age. I couldn't get into the others - mostly because they didn't have much plot at all, and were all about the world-building, so 15 year old me got bogged down and kind of bored. (I was geeky, just not that geeky.)

Anyhow, as I watched the film, the book began to come back to me - and I could visualize it in my head - which helped greatly. The film follows what I remember from the book. (Which is admittedly vague - since I read the book thirty years ago, but helped.)

So - if you are expecting a space opera or an action film? This is not it. It's far more interested in explaining to you in detail how a stultsuit (Freemen) suit works, the necessity of spice, and showing Paul training, visions of the future, and the military might of these families. Also what sandworms are. Like I said - lots of exposition.

Personally? I found it to be compelling - but that sort of thing turns me on. It is not for everyone. [I explained this to my friend Wales, who is a cinemaphile and wanted to see it for the visuals, I explained that the visuals are basically a lot of women in black running through the rain backlit by a space ship (which yes, cool, I rewound a couple of times, but not for everyone), sandstorm that goes on for ten minutes, and watching sand rumple underneath a sand streaked sky. Lawrence of Arabia, it's not.

It drags in places...I honestly thought they went overboard with Paul and his visions. I'd have cut it back a bit? And I didn't need to see all the over-shots of the military on Harkonnon, Caladon and Arrakis. I get the feeling they were very proud of their set design and wanted to show it off?

And, it would have helped if a good portion of the action/suspense sequences didn't happen in the dark? (This may have been less of an issue in the movie theater, I don't know.)

So that may have been why the plot got lost on my cousin? Also, about 50-60% of the film is exposition or the set-up for the plot.

The plot? It's not really that complicated. Typical boy's hero's journey.

( plot spoilers )

**

Overall? I enjoyed the movie. I found it compelling, far more so than expected. And seeing it on HBO Max helped, because I could take bathroom breaks, and rewind to pick up errant pieces of dialogue. The dialogue isn't easy to hear in spots.

It reminded me of why I enjoyed the book. It has some nice little philosophical quotes here and there,( Spoiler )

But I think you can enjoy it on HBO Max, depending on the size of your home theater options? Also, keep in mind it's not an action film, it is more world building and character focused with a slower pace. And filmed in dark corridors, with a dark color palette. Cinematography wise? Some excellent and gripping shots. But nothing you've not seen before.

1. For fans of Claudia Black and Farscape, also Dune: This whole Twitter Thread

2. #GoodOmens season 2 is now officially in production

neilhimself


https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/good-omens-season-2/

Or go HERE for details - from Neil Gaiman's Journal.

3. The Liberal PJack-o-lanternet Balloon liked
Kelly D
kellda
I live in a big city. There are NO EMPTY SHELVES. Stop pushing this narrative, media.

ME: "Replying to
kellda
I live in NYC and yes there are empty shelves at Wallgreens. I saw them today - they took all the ice cream, Russell Stovers Halloween Candies, and the toilet bowl cleaner. Plus all the single paper towels."

4. God (on Twitter): What makes you instantly gain respect for someone?
Me: Random acts of kindness?

5. connectpoliticditto.
cpoliticditto "The worst movie I’ve ever paid to see in a movie theater: Waterworld. "

Can anyone top that?

ME: Either Batman and Robin or Speed 2.

Anyone else?? [Please try not to pick one I love, because that would be annoying - here I'll help: Ladyhawk, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Must Love Dogs are off the menu.]

6. Possibly the only pun that's made me laugh...

"Mechanical armWinter SoldierMechanical arm Water waveFlag of IrelandFlag of Scotland
tm_manu_forti
·
3h
My daughter asked me who my favorite vampire was. I said "The guy from Sesame Street". She said, "He doesn't count". I said, "I can assure you he can"

7. Horror movies that traumatized you as a child?

Poltergiest - it did not help that I had a walk in closet and a weeping Willow tree that hit my window constantly.

Mother took us to see it in the movie theater - she doesn't find horror films scary and was kind of making fun of it.

I have not been able to get through Alien, The Fly (either version), or
Altered States.

Exorcist on the other hand didn't bother me that much at all. The Shining traumatized me in college - mainly because I saw it in a huge dorm, during a Winter Break in Colorado, where no one was on my floor but me, and the carpet was the same color as the hotels, as were the halls. The other film that traumatized me was Nightmare on Elm Street.

People on Twitter apparently had problems with..."Event Horizon" - which is a film I never made it through. It was gory and weird, and about a spaceship that goes to hell and came back. (I don't like gore.) They also had issues with The Descent.

8. And THIS clip from the Munsters.

9. Statue of Thomas Jefferson will be removed from City Council Chambers finally and moved to the NY Historical Society on a Long-Term Loan

10. Apparently British media blowhard and Simon Cowell wannabee, Piers Morgan, was upset that the Rolling Stones chose to drop Brown Sugar from their current tour. They dropped it because of its questionable and offensive lyrics that promoted the horrors of slavery.

I didn't remember the lyrics...at all. Except the refrain, "just around midnight." So I looked it up...
( lyrics to Brown Sugar )

Oh dear god. I'd say those are extremely offensive and cringe-inducing lyrics, wouldn't you? Jeeze.

What's amazing is I never noticed them before now.

Okay maybe not that amazing - I just listened to it again - and the only lyrics I can make out are "You should have heard, Just Around Midnight" and "Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good? Just Like a Young Girl Should" - that's it. I never could make out half of the Rolling Stones lyrics, they always got lost in the sound of the instrumentation.

Crap.

11. US Military may get a dog-like robot armed with a sniper rifle

Just what we need. Seriously, doesn't anyone watch science fiction films?

1. Watching S3 The Expanse -- 3.7-3.10. And, it's not as good as S2. (S2 arc is 2.7-3.6. Next arc begins on 3.7 and will end most likely with 4.6, unless they end it with 3.13. Since Syfy cancelled it and Amazon picked it up. New season is either in November or December 2019 (this year).

Warning -- if you didn't like Miller, he pops up again as a ghostly hologram in S3, which I sort of knew about ahead of time, because I was reading the books. And had read the teaser for the book this season is based on. It basically stated that they brought Miller's ghost back to help Holden solve a problem.

I'm almost done, three episodes to go. But I don't like it as much as the prior one, and find the plot and characters slightly aggravating. This season has a lot in common with S1 in that regard.

But there are quite a few bright points. I like all the characters for the most part, Holden is more likable. And the themes are interesting. Also David Straighthorn and Thomas Jane are guest stars. Elizabeth Mitchell is full time. But Christiane is terribly missed. Also, I'm definitely hooked on the series now. I care about all the main characters and the series has a definite Ursula Le Quinn Carry-Bag Story Arc vibe to it. It's hard sci-fi with a lot of character development mixed in, and more ensemble with a collaborative feel to it. Not to mention quite different than most of the science fiction on at the moment.

2. All caught up on S1 of The Good Fight, which I found to be more frustrating than enjoyable. The Bernie Maddox Ponzie Scheme plot line is annoying. Apparently this is gone by season 2, which may mean that Season 2 and 3 are better seasons? The story is interesting, when Maia and the Ponzie scheme aren't front and center. I realize this is the writer's attempt to replace the Alicia cheating scandal in The Good Wife, with another victim to power story thread. But...it's not working for me.

I do however adore Eli Gold's daughter apprenticing to be an investigator. That subplot is quite fun. As is, Lucca's arc for the most part. And Diane's. But Maia is dragging it down.

It's funny, or maybe not so funny, the things that I read online that inspire a post. Sometimes it's something as simple as a random comment to a spoilery review of a new movie that I peeked at.

The random comment: "Why do you like Bladerunner? I never understood the cult appeal of that film."

Why do we like what we like? It's an interesting question. Not everyone can easily answer. Clint Eastwood was once asked why he liked the films he did. And his response: "I just like them, I don't feel the need to think too hard about it. And does it matter? I just like what I like." Not everyone is introspective or reflective about these sorts of things.

I saw BladeRunner -- the original version with Rutguer Hauer, Daryl Hannah, Harrison Ford and Scean Young in the early 1980s, when it first premiered in theaters. My mother took me to it, and it was just us and about twenty other people in the theater. We loved it so much we drug the rest of the family to it soon after. (We were to repeat the experience shortly thereafter with Back to the Future -- a film neither of us were overtly fond of and had rated poorly in the pre-screening that we went to, but people loved for whatever reason. My mother found Back to the Future to be predictable and rather silly, cringe-inducing in places. My father however enjoyed it tremendously. And we saw the sequels in the theaters -- but movies were admittedly much cheaper back then.)

I asked my mother what it was about Bladerunner that she loved.
( spoilers for Original Bladerunner ending )

But, as I write this I wonder as I often have in the past why it is important to try to explain what may well be the inexplicable. There are just some things we can't explain to someone else. They either get it or they don't. And when they do? It's magic. Isn't it? And when they don't? We feel that much more alone somehow...on a rooftop, in the rain, as time drifts by us, our memories flying upwards into the sky.

1. Just finished watching Chess in Concert on Quello Concert App, which has a 7 day free trail before you have to subscribe. I don't think I will. There's not a lot on it.

Chess is the probably the reason I ended up watching Head on Buffy, but who knows? I saw him as The American, Freddy Trumper in the London Cast edition of Chess in the summer of 1988.

Here he is singing Pity the Child from that performance, except you just get the voice recording. I fell in love with him. And when he popped up in the Taster's Choice commercials and then later VR5, followed him. Wasn't really interested in Buffy that much, having seen and been disappointed in the film version, but at that point I was a fan of ASH and basically following him around the television set. VR5 (which had also starred Lori Singer or Darly Hannah, Michael Easten, and Head, was cancelled. Head popped over to Buffy, and so did I.

Anyhow, Chess and I have a bit of a history.

In 1986....strands of it floated from a boy's dorm room on same floor I was living on. ( Read more... )

2.) Started reading Witches of Karres by John Schmitz and surprise, surprise, I'm actually enjoying it. Was a little worried after all the good press, that I wouldn't. I went in with low expectations. It feels vaguely familiar in places, which is either because various sci-fi writers have ripped off the plot or I read it when I was a teenager and have forgot. Probably the latter.
Did read a lot of books by Andre Norton that I've forgotten the names of and most of the plot. Have vague recollections of them. The only ones I remember usually resonated for me in some way or really stood out because they were different or they were made into a movie or play.

* Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit (movies and play, I was in the Hobbit in the 6th Grade, played the Great Goblin. I was a very tall sixth grader and I can pitch my voice deep. I'm a deep alto. Wasn't going to cut it as a dwarf. And I towered over the high school boy (wickedly cute) who played the Hobbit.)

* CS Lewis Chronicles of Narnia

* The Westing Game

* The Witches of Worm by Zelphia Keatley Snyder -- it scared the shit out of me at the time, that's one creepy novel

* The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephan R. Donaldson

* The Dragon Riders of Pern

* Restoree by Anne McCaffrey

* Ship Who Sang by Anne McCaffrey

* Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula Le Quinn

* Dune by Frank Herbet

* Escape to Witch Mountain

* The Wolves of Willoughby Chase

* The Darkest Rising Books by Suzanne Cooper

Don't remember the rest. I read a ton, and pretty much everything I could get my hands on. I read all my parents books, all my brother's books, all the books at my grandparents house, at the library.

See, I had troubles learning how to read and desperately wanted to learn. ( Read more... )

So here's my completely mindless and spontaneous pop culture fandom war poll. The questions pertain to wars that I've seen on fan boards and live journal posts since 2002. I could only post 15 questions. So that left out a few cool ones. All the questions - I've seen heated discussions about online, believe it or not, that's why they came to mind. I mean a couple of people really hate or love some of these choices with a PASSION, almost as if their very lives depended on it. Also, you have to make a choice, no, indecisive wish-washy - oh I love everyone. Because what's the fun in that? You can skip questions of course. Outside of that? No real rules.

And since I posted it, I'll take it too. Although, you probably can already guess most of my answers. ;-) (ETA: on the last question - I wavered. I like both, and I read one more than the one I picked, at least recently, but that's mostly because the other requires too much brain-power, and I'm mentally drained at the moment.)

[Poll #1164928]